General Electric Co.

In the Matter of GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY and PATTERN MAKERS' LEAGUE OF NORTH AMERICA, A. F. L. Case No. R-9117.Decided January 23, 1941 Jurisdiction : electrical equipment manufacturing industry. Investigation and Certification of Representatives : existence of question : refusal to accord union recognition ; election necessary. Unit Appropriate for Collective Bargaining : election directed among pattern makers to determine whether or not they desire to constitute a separate unit. Mr. Martin I. Rose, for the Board. Mr. W. R. Burrows, of Schenectady, N. Y., for the Company. Mr. George Q. Lynch, of Washington, D. C., and Mr. Ernest Umpleby,i of Schenectady, N. Y., for the League. Mr. James J. Matles and Mr. Julius Emspale, of New York City, and Mr. Leo E. Jandreau,2 of Schenectady, N. Y., for the United. Mr. Gilbert V. Rosenberg, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION STATEMENT OF THE CASE On July 13, 1940, Pattern Makers' League of North America, herein called the League, filed with the Regional Director for the Second Region (New York City) a petition alleging that a question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation of employees of General Electric Company, Schenectady, New York, herein called the Company, at its Schenectady plant, and requesting an investigation and certification of representatives pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. On October 9, 1940, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, acting pursuant to Section 9 (c) of. the Act and Article III, Section 3, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations- 'Series 2, as amended, ordered an investigation and authorized the i Umpleby appeared for Pattern Makers' Association of Schenectady . For purposes of this decision , we shall hereinafter refer to this organization and Pattern Makers' League of North America together as the League. 2 Jandreau appeared for Local 301 of the United. For purposes of this decision, we shall hereinafter refer to Local 301, and United Electrical , Radio & Machine Workers of America together as the United. 29 N. L. R. B., No. 29. 162 GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY 163 Regional Director to conduct it and to provide for an appropriate hearing upon due notice. On October 11, 1940, the Regional Director issued a notice of hearing, copies of which were duly served upon the Company, the League, and United Electrical, Radio & Machine Work- ers of America, herein called the United, a labor organization claiming to represent employees of the Company. Pursuant to notice a hearing- was held on October 24, 1940, at Schenectady, New York, before Peter F. Ward, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the -Board. The Board was represented by counsel and the Company, the League, and the United by representatives; all participated in the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing upon the issues was afforded all parties. During the course of the hearing the Trial Examiner made several rulings on motions and objections to the admission of evidence. The Board has reviewed the iulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudicial errors were committed.' The rulings are hereby affirmed. At the conclusion of the hearing the United moved to dis- miss petition of the League. The Trial Examiner reserved decision on this motion for the Board. On November 12, 1940, the United filed a brief in support of this motion which the Board-has considered. For reasons hereinafter appearing, the Board hereby denies said motion. At the request of the United and pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before the Board in Washington, D. C., on December 3, 1940, for the purpose of oral argument. The United and the League appeared by representatives and participated in the argument. Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY General Electric Company, a New York corporation, with its prin- cipal office at Schenectady, New York, is engaged in the manufacture of electrical equipment. The Company operates plants in several States. The present proceeding involves only the Company's Sche- nectady, New York, plant which employs approximately 14,000 pro- duction and maintenance employees. The raw materials, consisting principally of steel and' copper, used annually at the Schenectady plant are valued at approximately $20,000,000. More than 50 per cent of such materials are obtained outside the State of New York. Fin- ished products manufactured annually at this plant are valued, -at approximately $50,000,000. More than 50 per cent of such products are shipped,,outside the State of New York.3 3 These findings are based upon a stipulation entered into by counsel for the parties and Board. 413602-42-vol 29-12 164 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD II. THE -LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED- - Pattern Makers' League of North America is a labor organization affiliated with the American Federation of Labor. It admits to membership, through its affiliate Pattern Makers' Association of Schenectady, all pattern makers and pattern makers' apprentices em- ployed at the Company's Schenectady plant. United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of North America is a 'labor organization affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organi- zations. It admits Ito membership, through its Local No. 301, employ- ees at the Company's Schenectady plant. III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION On December 16,, 1936, a consent election was conducted by the Regional Director among the production and maintenance employees at the Company's Schenectady plant. In the election a majority of the employees selected the United as their representative for the pur- poses of collective bargaining. On April 1, 1938, the United and the Company entered into a contract recognizing the United as the exclu- sive bargaining representative of employees of the company at plants where, through a Board election or certification or other appropriate means, the United has been selected as the exclusive representative. This contract became immediately effective as to the Schenectady plant. As modified in 1939 and 1940 it is still in effect. The contract incorporated the existing policy of the Company concerning wages, hours, and working conditions, set up grievance procedure, and pro- vided a plan for future consideration of modifications of the contract. The contract also provided that it shall be in force for 1 year, and thereafter from year to year unless one party gives the other party 90 days advance written notice of cancellation . At the time of the hearing, as a result of Board elections, at least 19 plants, including the Schenectady plant of the Company, were covered by this agreement.4 In June 1940 Company officials refused to meet with or recognize a committee of employees from the pattern shop of the Schenectady plant. The committee allegedly represented the League and, through its the pattern makers at the plant, numbering 77 persons. The Company's stated reason for its refusal is that by virtue of the consent election and the contract with the United the Company was con- strained to recognize the United as the sole bargaining agent for all 4 At most all these plants the unit for collective bargaining is the plant-wide unit including pattern makers in those plants where they are employed At the Fort Wayne plant there is a separate unit for machinists and at the Erie plant there is pending a Board proceeding involving the question of a separate unit for pattern makers. Since the consent election in December 1936, the Company, and the United have, considered and. treated the pattern makers at the Schenectady plant as a part of the plant -wide unit. , GENERAL'- ELECTRIC COMPANY, 165 production and maintenance employees, including the pattern makers, at the plant. Thereafter, in July 1940, the League filed the peti- tion in this proceeding. There was introduced in evidence a report prepared by the Be-' gional Director showing that the' League represented a substantial number of the employees in the unit alleged in its petition to be appropriate.' We find that a question has arisen concerning the representation of employees of the Company. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION ; UPON COMMERCE We find that the question concerning representation which has arisen, occurring in connection with the operations of the Company described in Section I above, has a , close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and tends to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT The League alleges in its petition that all wood and metal pattern makers employed by the Company at its Schenectady plant constitute a unit appropriate' for the purposes of collective bargaining. The United opposes the separation of these employees from a plant-wide unit, claimed by it to be appropriate, comprising all production and maintenance employees, including pattern makers, at the Schenectady plant. The Company employs approximately 14,000 persons at this plant, of whom 77 are in the unit claimed by the League. The pattern makers employed by the Company at the Schenectady plant work in one department separate and distinct from other de- partments of the plant. They are a well established and highly skilled craft, requiring a lengthy apprenticeship. The -League has had members in the Schenectady plant for the past 35 years and evidence was introduced tending to show that all pattern makers at this plant have been and are members of the League and that none 6 The Regional Director reported that the League had produced a petition signed by 75 of the 77 pattern makers whose names appear on the Company's pay roll of August 8, 1940, in which the signers authorized the League to represent them The Regional Director also reported therein that the United had submitted no evidence in support of its claim to represent any employees in the alleged appropriate unit At the hearing, the United, moved that this portion of the report be stricken from the record on the ground that the Regional Director failed to request the United to submit evidence of this nature. The Trial Examiner reserved decision on this motion for the Board. '-The Board hereby denies said motion noting, however, the evidence introduced at the hearing to show that the United represents a substantiar"number of production and maintenance employees ,of'the Company at the Schenectady plant ( ' 166 DECISIONS - OF NATIONAL LABOR I RELATIONS BOARD are members of the United. A committee from the pattern maker's' shop both before and after the consent election in December 1936, and until June 1940, when the Company challenged its authority, has engaged in numerous conferences with the Company concerning grievances, working conditions, and wage increases involving the pat- tern makers,, although the shop committee has neither requested or- concluded a written bargaining agreement with the Company. The League was not a party to the consent election agreement which preceded the election of December 16, 1936, and its name did not appear upon the ballot used in the election." Pattern makers were eligible to vote, however, and it appears that 28 persons wrote in the name of the League upon their ballots.° In opposition to the League's petition the United contends that the plant-wide unit in which the election was held and which is covered by the contract with the Company is appropriate, that it has bar- gained for the pattern makers along with other employees under the contract,' and that the conferences between the Company and the committee from the pattern shop did not constitute real collective bargaining, but merely reflected the practice of departmental shop committees permitted by the contract, to confer with representatives of management. The United, admitting that it has no members among the pattern makers, stated that as a matter of policy and in the interest of general cooperation it has not solicited the member- ship of employees who are members of the League or of other craft organizations at the plant. Under all the circumstances, including the fact that the members of the League, whose history of organization at the plant antedates that of the United, did not have an opportunity in the consent elec- tion to vote for the League, the positive showing in the consent election, as evidenced by the 28 ballots with the name of the League written in, that a substantial number of persons desired to be repre- sented by the League, we are of the opinion that the unit used in the consent election, to which the Company and the United have applied their contract, should not be accorded binding effect, and that the question of the proper unit for the pattern makers should be deter- mined by the desires of the pattern makers themselves. We shall 8 The ballots carried the names of the United and the Workers Council, another labor organization organizing on a plant-wide basis . Of the 9 ,272 ballots cast, 5,111 were for the United, and 4,033 for the workers Council. ' The League contends that in view of the long history of bargaining between the Company and the pattern makers through their 'committee and the fact that the pattern shop was organized under the jurisdiction of the League it did not believe that the results of the election would affect the existing relationship between the pattern makers and the Com- pany The League further contends that until June 1940 the right of the pattern makers to bargain as a separate unit had never been challenged in any manner. 8 The United claims credit for obtaining an increase under the contract for the pattern makers in October 1940. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY 167 therefore direct that an election be held among the wood and metal pattern makers at the Schenectady plant of the Company to determine whether they desire to be represented by the League, or by the United, for the purposes of collective bargaining, or by neither. If a majority of -wood and metal pattern makers vote for the League, they will have indicated their desire to constitute a separate unit and we shall find that-the pattern makers constitute a separate appropriate unit and shall certify the League as the exclusive representative thereof. If a majority votes for the United we shall consider that the pattern makers desire to form part of the larger unit established in the con- sent election and covered in the contract. VI. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES We find that the question concerning the representation of em- ployees of the Company can best be resolved by an election by secret ballot. The United failed to indicate at the hearing whether or not it desired to be placed on the ballot if an election should be held among the pattern makers. We shall direct that an election by secret ballot be, held among all pattern makers at the Schenectady plant of the 'Company who were employed during the pay-roll period last preced- ing the date of this Direction, with the inclusions and exclusions set forth in the Direction, to determine whether they desire to be repre- sented by the League, or by the United, for purposes of collective bargaining, or by neither. We shall, however, grant permission to the United to have its name withdrawn from the ballot, if it so desires, and if it so notifies in writing the Regional Director for the Second Region within ten (10) days from the date of this Direction of Election. Upon the-basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following : CONCLUSION OF LAW A question affecting commerce has arisen concerning the repre- sentation of, employees of General Electric Company, Schenectady, New York, at its Schenectady plant, within the meaning of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act. DIRECTION OF ELECTION By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National Labor Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Rela- tions Act, 49 Stat. 449, and pursuant to Article III, Section 8, of 168 'DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 2, as amended, it is hereby - DIRECTED, that, as part of the investigation authorized by the Board to ascertain representatives for the purposes of collective bar- gaining with General Electric Company, Schenectady, New York, an election by secret ballot shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later than thirty (30) days from the date of this Direction, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Second Region, acting in this matter as agent for the National Labor Relations Board, and subject to Article III, Section 9, of said Rules and Regulations, among the wood and metal pattern makers employed by said Company at its Schenectady plant during the pay-roll period last preceding the date of this Direction, including employees who did not work during such pay-roll period because they were ill or-on vacation, and employees who were then' or have since been tempo- rarily laid off, but excluding employees who have since quit or been discharged for cause, to determine whether they desire to be repre- sented by Pattern Makers' League of North America, affiliated with the A. F. of L., or by United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America (C. I. 0.), for the purposes of collective bargaining, or by neither. MR. EDWIN SMITH, dissenting : I dissent from the decision to hold an election among the pattern makers.9 Since the consent election of December 1936 the United has represented the employees of the pattern shop as part, of the plant-wide industrial unit, and since April 1938 these employees have been included under a valid, exclusive bargaining contract between the United and the Company covering that unit. Neither the fact that a number of employees of the pattern shop attempted to designate the League in the 1936 election, nor the fact that the United, in- the'interest of harmonious relations, has re- frained from attempts to persuade League members to desert the League and join the United and has allowed employees of the pat- tern shop a degree of autonomy, derogates from the appropriateness of the presently functioning industrial unit.'° - 9 See my dissenting opinion in Matter of Allis-Chalmers Manufacturing Company 'and International Union, United Automobile Workers of America, Local 248, 4 N. L. R. B. 159. 10 Although I agree with the position , implicit in the opinion of the majority of the Board, that the Board is not precluded from finding a different appropriate unit from that -ehich has previously been established by an exclusive bargaining contract , I am constrained to observe that Mr Leioerson 's concurrence in that position is inconsistent with his stand In analogous cases in which he has expressed the view that the Board lacks authority to make such a determination . ( See inter alia, Matter of American Can Co. and Engineers Local No 30 Firemen it Oilers Local No. 56, et al., 13 N. L. R. B. 1252; Matter of West Coast Wood Preserving Company and Boommen and Rafters Union, Local 130,'1. W. A:, 15 N. L. R. B. 1; Matter of Milton Bradley Company and International Printing Pressmen and Assistants Union of North America (A. F. L.), 15 N. L. R. B. 938.) GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY 169 The acquiescence of the pattern makers over recent years in repre- sentation by the United renders inapplicable the considerations of earlier organization and bargaining on a craft basis such as have led me to concur in directions of separate elections for the members of crafts." I would dismiss the petition. [SAME TITLE] AMENDMENT TO DIRECTION OF ELECTION February 10, 1941 On January 23, 1941, the `National, Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, issued a Decision and Direction of Election in the above-entitled proceeding.' By letter dated February 3, 1941, United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America, pursuant to permission granted in the above-mentioned Decision and Direction of Election, -requested of the Regional Director for the Second Re- gion that its name be removed from the ballot to be used in the election. Accordingly, the Board hereby amends the Direction of Election issued on January 23, 1941, by striking therefrom the words "to determine whether they desire to be represented by Pattern Makers' League of North America, affiliated with the A. F. of L., or by United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America (C. I. 0.), for the purposes of collective bargaining, or by neither," and substituting therefor the words "to determine whether or not they desire to be represented by Pattern Makers' League of North America, affiliated with A. F. of L., for the purposes 'of collective bargaining." - ' n See my concurring opinion in Matter of American Hardware Corporation and United Electrical and Radio Workers of America, 4 N. L. R. B. 412. 29 N. L. R: B., No. 29a.