1 - National Labor Relations Board

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Representation Cases 61 not also have a larger common community of interests. Indeed, Section 9(b) of the Act reflects this basic fact of industrial and mercantile life in establishing the presumptive appropriateness of an employer unit, craft unit, plant unit, or subdivision thereof. Quite obviously, the fact that a subdivision of a plant may be appropriate does not preclude a finding that such employees may also appropriately be included in one of the larger enumerated units." In another case 53 the Board concluded that a prior history of bargaining in a certified unit with a joint representative did not preclude amendment of the certification to establish two units, each represented by only one of the joint representatives. It amended the certification of a unit of production and engineering department employees at a television station to permit one of the unions to separately represent engineers and technicians who have been included in the bargaining unit with film editors and stage hands. The Board found, in this case, that the bargaining history and practices showed a substantial degree of autonomy and separateness by these two unions in their relationships with each other and with the employer which justified a determination that the purposes of the Act would best be effectuated by amending the certification to provide for two separate bargaining units, one of engineers and technicians to be represented by the petitioner, and the other of film editors and stagehands to be represented by the other union. The departments involved worked independently of each other, the nature of the work of the various groups was different, and the jobs were not interchangeable. In fact, if the employer required extra engineering personnel, he notified the petitioner's representative and, in like fashion, the employer requested needed film directors and stagehands by notifying the other union. Although the bargaining agreements had not expressly provided for separate seniority lists applying to the operating departments involved, the established practice under the bargaining relationship showed that there was a separate departmental seniority governing promotions, layoffs, shift selection, vacation choice, and overtime. The bargaining history also demonstrated that the grievance and arbitration procedure was discretely oriented and implemented, i.e., each union had its own shop stewards, and grievances were processed without any joint participation or representation by the nonaggrieved union. Finally, the labor agreements included separate wage scales and progression systems for the respective union member-employees, "220 Television, Inc., 172 NLRB No. 142.
62 Thirty-fourth Annual Report of the National Labor Relations Board and members of each union participated in their own union's health and welfare plan. In these circumstances, the Board did not feel that its decision to provide for two separate bargaining units would be unduly disruptive of industrial stability because, in large measure, it was reflective of an already existing situation which was fully understood and accepted by the parties. 4. Unit Clarification Issues The propriety of a unit clarification proceeding was considered by the Board in Lufkin Foundry & Machine Co., 54 where a petition had been filed seeking to clarify the description of a certified unit to include in an existing production and maintenance unit all working foremen and certain servicemen. The Board dismissed the petition, finding that the request for the disputed foremen raised a question concerning representation which could not be resolved in a unit clarification proceeding. The Board noted especially that the working foremen's jobs have existed since prior to the 1949 certification of the bargaining unit, that contracts negotiated subsequent to the certification of the unit have excluded them, that no question as to their inclusion was raised until 1966, and that no allegation was made that recent changes in their job content have made them nonsupervisory unit employees. Without reaching the issues raised as to correctness of the regional director's finding that these working foremen were not supervisors, the Board held that they may remain excluded from the unit, since, even if the Board had found that they were not supervisors, the proper procedure for obtaining their inclusion in the unit was a petition pursuant to section 9(c) of the Act seeking an election. The "blurred line" 55 between work-assignment disputes and controversies over the scope of the bargaining unit received the attention of the Board in the McDonnell Co. case. 56 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 its unit. The production employees concededly had always operated the circuit analyzers and the electricians had adjusted or cali- 64 174 NLRB No. 90. " Carey v. Weattnghouse Electric Corp., 375 U.S. 261, 268. 56 173 NLRB No 31.
Page 1 and 2:
TMR.TY-FOURM ANNUAL REPORT
Page 4:
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Memb
Page 8 and 9:
7 TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER I. Oper
Page 10:
Table of Contents ix Page 1. Preser
Page 13 and 14:
2 Thirty-fourth Annual Report of th
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
1 8 Thirty-fourth Annual Report of
Page 21 and 22: 10 Thirty-fourth Annual Report of t
Page 27 and 28: PERCENT PERCENT 100 100 1111111 90
Page 39 and 40: II Jurisdiction of the Board The Bo
Page 55 and 56: V Representation Cases The Act requ
Page 71: 60 Thirty-fourth Annual Report of t
Page 83 and 84: VI Unfair Labor Practices The Board
Page 111 and 112: 100 Thirty-fourth Annual Report of
Page 123 and 124:
112 Thirty-fourth Annual Report of
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
VIII Enforcement Litigation Board o
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
IX Injunction Litigation Section 10
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
Page 205 and 206:
Page 207 and 208:
Page 209 and 210:
Page 211 and 212:
Table 3A.—Formal Actions Taken in
Page 213 and 214:
Table 4.—Remedial Actions Taken i
Page 215 and 216:
Table 5.—Industrial Distribution
Page 217 and 218:
Table 6.—Geographic Distribution
Page 219 and 220:
Table 7.-Analysis of Methods of Dis
Page 221 and 222:
it! All C cases CA cases CB cases C
Page 223 and 224:
Stage of disposition ' Table 8.-Dis
Page 225 and 226:
Table 10.-Analysis of Methods of Di
Page 227 and 228:
Table 11A.—Analysis of Elections
Page 229 and 230:
Page 231 and 232:
Table 13.-Final Outcome of Represen
Page 233 and 234:
Participating unions AFL-CIO v. AFL
Page 235 and 236:
Table 14.-Valid Votes Cast in Repre
Page 237 and 238:
Participating unions AFL-CIO v. AFL
Page 239 and 240:
Table 15.-Geographic Distribution o
Page 241 and 242:
144 0 Table 16.-Industrial Distribu
Page 243 and 244:
1.) LA, iv Table 17.-Size of Units
Page 245 and 246:
Table 18.-Distribution of Unfair La
Page 247 and 248:
Table 19.-Litigation for Enforcemen
Page 249 and 250:
Table 20.—Injunction Litigation U
Page 251:
show all

1 - National Labor Relations Board

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?