1 - National Labor Relations Board

Operations in Fiscal Year 1969 23
set forth in section 2(2). Noting that the legislative history
of the 1959 amendments to section 8(b) (4) (B) made clear that
Congress intended to protect all "persons" from secondary pressures,
the Board found that the political subdivisions were "persons"
within the Act's definition of that term, that the operations.
of the political subdivisions had an impact on commerce, and
that the dispute fell within the scope of section 8(b) (4) (B). It
therefore concluded that it had jurisdiction and should assert it
to effectuate the purposes of the Act.
b. Representation Issues
The "blurred line" 2 between work assignment disputes and controversies
over the scope of the bargaining unit received the attention
of the Board in the McDonnell Company case. 3 There
the representative of a certified unit of electricians doing maintenance
and instrument calibration work on testing equipment in
an aircraft factory, and the representative of a certified unit of
production employees, each claimed that the maintenance and
calibration of sophisticated electronic circuit analyzers newly installed
by the employer was encompassed within the certification
of their unit. The production employees concededly had always
operated the circuit analyzers and the electricians had adjusted or
calibrated them. However, the maintenance and calibration of
the new equipment was so integrated into the production process
—a faulty circuit reading required verification of the operation
and calibration of the analyzer as well as examination of the wiring
circuits being tested—that the employer sought by a unit
clarification petition to have the work defined as production work
within the certification of the production unit. Although the
Board recognized that the issue could be raised for Board consideration
by strike action and an 8(b) (4) (D) charge, it concluded
that the matter was "essentially a unit issue," involving
a question of accretion to an existing unit. It noted also that
to decline to consider the matter in a unit clarification proceeding
would subject the parties to additional litigation, expense,
and delay and would not serve the purposes of the Act.
c. Validity of Oral Union-Security Clause
In one case 4 decided during the year the Board held that "a
union-security agreement which is otherwise valid is not neces-
2 Carey v. WeatInghouse Eleetrw Corp, 375 U.S. 261, 268
3 173 NLRB No 31, mfra, pp. 62-63
4 Pacific Iron & Metal Co., 175 NLRB No. 114, infra, p p . 74-75.
384-517 0 - 70 - 3