Bridgeport Brass Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 23, 1954

110 N.L.R.B. 997 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

BRIDGEPORT BRASS COMPANY 997
their tenure in their jobs, all depend on this Employer. For this rea-
son, we believe that the community of interest among the guards far
'exceeds any supposed coherence in the single plant as a unit, a coher-
once based only on the fortuity of physical separation.5 To us the unit
the majority approves can be justified only by the extent of the Peti-
tioner's organization, a basis expressly interdicted by the Act. Ac-
,cordingly, we would dismiss the petition.
c Noi, considering the realities of modern life, can we be much impressed with a sepa-
ration of no more than 7 miles from the closest plant to this one
BRIDGEPORT BRASS COMPANY ALUMINUM DIVISION and INTERNATIONAL
DIE SINKERS CONFERENCE INDEPENDENT, PETITIONER. Case No.
7-R.C-2503. November 23, 1954
Decision and Direction of Election
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Myron K. Scott, hear-
ing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain
employees of the Employer.'
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9
(c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
The Petitioner seeks a unit of diesinkers. On April 7, 1954, the
Employer and Intervenor entered into a bargaining agreement cover-
ing a production and maintenance unit, which included among other
employees those in the requested unit. This contract, though includ-
ing substantial conditions of employment such as wages, insurance,
grievance, no-lockout, and no-strike provisions, was expressly denomi-
nated an "interim agreement" and provided that it would continue
in effect until such time as a "complete" agreement was negotiated
by the parties and became effective. It further provided that negotia-
tions for such an agreement would commence when 200 hourly paid
employees were working in the plant. The petition was filed on
June 10. On June 16, despite the fact that 200 such employees were
not then working, the Employer and Intervenor, at the latter's re-
' The International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft & Agricultural Implement
Workers, Local 387, CIO, intervened at the healing.
110 NLRB No. 158.
998 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
quest, began negotiations on a new contract. No agreement had been,
reached at the time of the hearing.
The Employer contends that this proceeding is barred by its recog-
nition of the Intervenor. The Intervenor argues more specifically
that, under Board precedent, its contract with the Employer, being
one of indefinite duration, is a bar to a representation proceeding
during the initial 2 years of its existence' Consequently, both the-
Employer and Intervenor request that the petition be dismissed. The
Board distinguishes, however, between those agreements which, al-
though of uncertain duration, are designed to establish a stable, con-
tinuing relationship between an employer and a union and those which
are merely "temporary and provisional in character" and which the-
parties contemplate superseding with a permanent agreement.3 In
our opinion the contract in evidence in this proceeding falls within
the latter grouping of temporary, stopgap agreements. As noted
above, by its very terms it is denominated an "interim agreement"
and is designed to continue in effect only until such time as the parties.
enter into a "complete" agreement. The Board has consistently held
contracts of such a nature not to bar a representation proceeding.'
It is true, as the minority points out, that in the past such a ruling
has been applied in cases involving expired contracts which have been
extended until the parties negotiate a new, but final agreement. How-
ever, in those cases the determinative factor was not the fact that an
extended contract was involved, but the more basic fact that at the
time the contract was raised as a bar it had become temporary and
provisional, designed to last only until a new agreement was con-
summated.' With regard to this determinative element, we can per-
ceive no substantial difference between the contract raised herein as
a bar and those stopgap agreements which the Board has in the past
refused to give the effect of a contract bar. Accordingly, we find that
the agreement between the Employer and Union is no bar to this
proceeding. The motions of the Employer and Intervenor to dismiss,
the petition are therefore denied.
2 The Union also argues that certain letters it received from the Employer in which the.
Employer agreed to recognize it as the bargaining representative of the production and
maintenance employees is a bar to this proceeding . However, as these letters provided
only for the recognition of the Union they are no bar to this proceeding.
i See : Iowa Public Service Company, 102 NLRB 701, footnote 1; The Alliance Manu-
facturing Company, 101 NLRB 112, 114, and cases therein cited, footnote 6
4 Cases cited in footnote 3, above See also. Inca Company, 93 NLRB 745, 746;
Worthy Paper Company Association, 80 NLRB 19 , footnote 9; Duquesne Light Company,
71 NLRB 336, 340.
5 The Intervenor , in asserting its contract to be a bar, relies heavily on the Board's
recent decision in Rohm & Haas Company, 108 NLRB 1285 . However, we are of the
opinion that , as the contract involved in that case was the parties ' final agreement , rather
than a temporary , stopgap arrangement , the case is not in point . Furthermore , despite
certain broad language in that decision it is clear that the Board did not intend to, and
did not , overrule in its Rohm & Haas decision that line of cases referred to above, in
which the Board has refused to recognize a temporary contract of indefinite duration as
a bar to a representation proceeding.
BRIDGEPORT BRASS COMPANY 999
4. The Petitioner seeks a unit comprised of diesinkers who work on
dies and parts of dies. The Employer contends that the unit is in-
appropriate because (1) no distinct unit of diesinkers exists and (2)
the admitted skill of diesinkers is insufficient justification for frag-
mentizing the present collective-bargaining unit. The Intervenor
takes no position as to the appropriateness of the unit.
At the time of the hearing in this case there were 4 diesinkers in
the Employer's plant-3 journeymen and 1 apprentice. These em-
ployees have their own separate, immediate supervision. Each of the
journeymen has completed an 8-year apprenticeship training period.
They spend most of their time working in the die forge shop making
or repairing intricate dies. In view of the foregoing, we find that
the diesinkers here comprise a traditional craft group, performing
distinctive and typical craft tasks. Moreover, the Petitioner is a labor
organization which historically and traditionally represents this craft.
Accordingly, we further find that the following employees of the Em-
ployer at its Adrian, Michigan, plant, may, if they so desire, con-
stitute a unit appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining within
the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act: B All employees who work
on dies or parts of dies used in the manufacturing and completion of
forgings, excluding all other employees, plant clerical employees,
office clerical employees, professional employees, guards, and super-
visors as defined in the Act.
However, we shall make no final unit determination at this time.
If in the election herein directed a majority of the employees vote for
the Petitioner, the Regional Director is instructed to issue a certifi-
cation of representatives for the unit of diesinkers herein described,
which in these circumstances we find to be appropriate for purposes
of collective bargaining. If, on the other hand, a majority vote for
the Intervenor, which has requested no election in the overall pro-
duction and maintenance unit it presently represents, the employees
will be taken to have indicated their desire to remain in that unit and
the Regional Director is instructed to issue a certification of results
of election to that effect. If a majority vote for no union, the Regional
Director is instructed to issue a certification of results of election to
that effect.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
MEMBERS MURDOCK and BEESON, dissenting in part :
We disagree with the conclusion of the majority that the contract,
between the Employer and the Intervenor is no bar to the petition.
The Board has long held that a contract of indefinite duration is, if
6 Eaton Mawu/acturan,g Company, 108 NLRB 1269.
4000 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
otherwise valid,' a bar to a representation proceeding during its ini-
tial 2-year period,8 with the one exception that an expired contract
temporarily extended until such time as the parties enter into a new
agreement will not be given such effect.' The majority, however,
,expands the exception to embrace all contracts which are not viewed
from their very inception as being the final agreement between the
parties, upon the ground, apparently, that such contracts do not pro-
mote industrial stability.10 Certainly, though, the contract here in
evidence, being terminable by its terms only by the parties entering
into a new agreement, is as productive of industrial stability as con-
tracts terminable at will which the Board has recently held to consti-
tute a bar for aft initial 2-year period." The unfortunate effect of
the Board's decision will be to deny newly contracting parties the
salutary stabilizing effect of a contract bar where they have made
provision in their contract for possible revision upon further explo-
ration of their new relationship. At any rate, we do not believe that
the position taken by the majority is consonant with past Board rul-
ings in this matter, and as new policy, we feel it is unwise. We would
find the contract a bar and dismiss the petition.
9 As noted in the majority decision , the contract now before us contains substantial
terms of employment and could , if the parties desired , serve as the basis of their rela-
tionship for a long period of time. Furthermore , there is no evidence in the record that
the contract was signed ( 1) at a time when there was no representative complement of
employees in the plant or (2) in order to forestall an election among the employees.
8 Rohm & Haas Company, 108 NLRB 1285 ; Season Hosiery Mills, Inc., 84 NLRB 654,
655 ; Filtrol Corporation, 74 NLRB 1307, 1309.
e See footnote 4, above.
10 The majority contends that its conclusion is in keeping with those past Board deci-
sions holding temporary extensions of recently expired contracts to be no bar. E. g.
Iowa Public Service, cited footnote 3, above. However, the majority reaches its con-
clusion by construing those cases as turning solely on the point that temporary contracts
are involved. In so doing, it finds to be immaterial the fact that each case cited in sup-
port of their position concerns a contract which recently expired and was only then tem-
porarily extended. We think the majority is wholly unwarranted in relegating this latter
factor in this case to insignificance . Certainly , the cases themselves offer no justifica-
tion for such an interpretation.
11 Rohm & Haas Co., supra.
.FRY PRODUCTS, INC. and MARIE ATWOOD, EMMA WILLIAMS EVANS,
FAYE CARR AND ANNA RUTH MOORE. Case No. 9-CA-6'557. Novem-
ber 24,1954
Decision and Order
On May 19, 1954, Trial Examiner John C. Fischer issued his Inter-
mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Inter-
mediate Report attached hereto. The Trial Examiner also found that
the Respondent had not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices
110 NLRB No. 169.