General Electric Co.Download PDFNational Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsJun 10, 1954108 N.L.R.B. 1290 (N.L.R.B. 1954) Copy Citation 1290 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY and LOCAL 301, INTER- NATIONAL UNION OF ELECTRICAL, RADIO AND MACHINE WORKERS, CIO, Petitioner . Case No. 2-RC-6665. June 10, 1954 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was heldbeforel . L. Broadwin, hearing officer . The hearing officer ' s rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.' On May 20, 1954, the Board heard oral argument in this case at Washington , D. C., in which argument the Employer, the Petitioner , and the UE participated . The IAM, although repre- sented at such argument , did not participate therein. 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 representation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 ( 6) and (7) of the Act. The UE asserts that its current national agreement with the Employer, which includes within its scope the employees involved in this proceeding at the Employer ' s Schenectady, New York, plant , is a bar to the petition filed herein on March 16, 1954. This agreement , which by its terms is effective until April 1, 1955, and from year to year thereafter, in the absence of appropriate termination notice , also contains the following modification clause: Not more than 60 days and not less than 30 days prior to: June 1, 1954, April 1, 1955; and any April 1st date there- after, respectively , either the Company or the Union may present to the other notice of proposed modifications or additions to the provisions hereof. Within 15 days after such notice is given, collective bargaining negotiations shall commence for the purpose of considering such modifications or additions . Failing agreement thereon by I In view of our finding , infra , that the contract between the Employer and the UE is not a bar to a present determination of representatives , the UE's motion to reopen the record, for the purpose of adducing additional evidence pertaining to the alleged schism in the ranks of Local 301, presents no matters which are material to this proceeding ; the motion is accordingly denied . For the reasons stated in paragraph numbered 4, infra , the UE's motion to reopen the record for the purpose of adducing additional evidence on the question of the appropriate unit is also denied. 2 United Electrical , Radio and Machine Workers of America ( UE), and its affiliated UE Local 301, herein collectively called the UE, were permitted to intervene on the basis of a current contractual interest. International Association of Machinists , AFL. was permitted to intervene on the basis of an appropriate showing of interest. 108 NLRB No. 183. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY 1291 June 1 , 1954 , April 1 , 1955 , or any subsequent April 1st thereafter , respectively , the Union and its UE Locals shall have the right to strike, but the contract shall con- tinue in effect as provided in Article XXVI. However, in the event of such strike , the Company may, at its option, terminate this Agreement upon three days' written notice to the Union. The Employer and the Petitioner assert that for various reasons , including an alleged schism in the ranks of UE Local 301, this contract is not a bar. Because we are of the opinion that, in view of the nature of the foregoing modification clause, the petition herein was filed at an appropriate time, we find it unnecessary to consider the other contentions of the parties with respect to the contract -bar issue. Cases upholding the proposition that an existing collective- bargaining contract may bar an election are too numerous to identify . The principles established in these cases have resulted from the Board ' s efforts to accommodate the statutory ob- jectives of freedom inth: choice ofabargaining representative, and stability in labor - management relationships . In applying those principles to a contract which serves to stabilize the relationships between the parties for a reasonable period, the Board has concluded that effectuation of the purposes of the Act requires that, until near the end of the period of the con- tract, the employees ' right of freedom in the choice of their representative be subordinated to the interests of industrial stability.' When, however , the existence of a'.contract does not serve to stabilize the relationships between the parties , either because of the nature of the contract ,4 or because of the presence of other factors, 5 the Board has given immediate effect to the employees ' freedom to choose their representative. In applying these established principles to this case, the funda- mental question , in our opinion , is whether the contract in issue so stabilizes the collective- bargaining relationships be- tween the Employer and the UE, that the Board would be justified in denying to these employees an opportunity to exercise at this time their right freely to choose their collec- tive -bargaining representative . We answer that question in the negative. The above- quoted modification clause is unlimited in scope, in that under the terms of this provision , either party may require negotiations with respect to any or all of the provisions of the contract .6 Failing agreement , the UE may call a strike , in which event the Employer may terminate the contract. We fail to perceive how a contract which contains such a broad 3 See, e.g., National Labor Relations Board, Fourteenth Annual Report, pp. 22-23. 4 E.g., The Laclede Gas Light Company, 76 NLRB 199, 201. 5 E g., Boston Machine Works Company, 89 NLRB 59, 60. 6In view of the limited nature of the modification clause in Dick Brothers, Inc., 107 NLRB 1054, that case is distinguishable from the instant case. 1292 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD provision for midterm modification, and which contains no inhibitions on the Union ' s right to strike to enforce its demands, and expressly provides the privilege of termination by one party only , can be said to have stabilized the relationship be- tween the parties for the full nominal term of their contract. Under this provision , once notice is given nothing remains of the entire contract but the meaningless terminal date, which is itself subject to extinction . Viewed realistically , this con- tractual provision insures no greater degree of stability than does the usual automatic - renewal clause, which the Board has consistently held opens a contract to a timely rival petition. In either situation , until the time for giving notice has passed, or the parties have executed a new or modified contract, the degree of industrial stability which the Board ' s contract-bar principles were designed to preserve does not exist . In neither situation , therefore , is there any rational basis for denying to the employees , on the basis of a timely petition , an immediate opportunity to exercise their franchise . To reach contrary results in two substantially identical factual situations would, in our opinion , be unwarranted.7 As the petition herein was timely filed with respect to the date for giving notice pursuant to the above - quoted modification clause, we find that the contract between the Employer and the UE is not a bar to this proceeding. 4. The parties agree that the historic production and mainte - nance unit is appropriate in this proceeding . The UE asserts, however, that the hearing officer erred in excluding evidence on the question whether plant clerical employees have been included in or excluded from that unit . None of the parties has taken a position , either on that issue, or on the related issue of whether they should be so included or excluded. It appears, moreover , that in elections conducted by the Board in this unit in 1950 and 1951 , there was no substantial disagree- ment among the parties concerning the categories of em- ployees encompassed within the unit. Under these circum- stances , we find that the unit placement of plant clerical employees is not presently a material issue in this proceeding. We find accordingly , on the basis of the agreement of the parties and the entire record, that all production and mainte- nance employees of the Employer at its plants located at River Road , Campbell Avenue , and Knolls I, Schenectady, New York, and at Malta , New York, including expediters, but excluding all employees engaged in atomic energy operations, all office and clerical employees, cage dispatchers , pattern- makers for whom the Patternmakers League of North America has been certified, plumbers and steamfitters for whom the Plumbers and Steamfitters Union has been certified, truck- drivers in the Inter Works Trucking Division (Corporate 7 To the extent that it is inconsistent with this decision, Western Electric Company, Incor- porated, 94 NLRB 54, is hereby overruled. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY 1293 Affairs Department ), professional employees , guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appro- priate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] Member Murdock, concurring: I agree with my colleagues in the majority , but on different grounds, that an immediate election should be directed in this case, notwithstanding that the current contract , by its terms, is not due to expire until April 1, 1955. The majority has found that no bar exists because of certain language contained in the contract modification clause . However , only recently, in two proceedings s involving the very same type of agreement and issue , the Board reached the opposite conclusion , finding in those cases that such a contract was a bar, not terminable at will, as was there contended . The net effect of the present majority holding , upon analysis , is simply that such a con- tract does not provide for a stable term because it can be- come terminable at will during a midterm modification period. 9 The majority decision thus conflicts squarely with the earlier Dick Brothers and General Electric cases. It is necessary then to point out that provision in a modification clause rendering it terminable at will clearly takes the case outside the Western Electric doctrine 11 concerning the permissibility of contract modification by mutual assent in midterm. As shown below, independent grounds exist , on which I rely, for removing the present contract as a bar . Were it actually an issue, I would vigorously adhere to the Western Electric doctrine. My colleagues avoid the plethora of evidence in this record of widespread confusion as to the identity of the employees' bargaining representative and of the fact that an effective schism has taken place in the ranks of the contracting union. Thus, among other things, the record shows (a) that of approxi- mately 15,000 members in the former UE Local 301, about 80 percent voted on the question of disaffiliation at formal membership meetings of the UE local , called with proper notice that the subject of the disaffiliation would be taken up and voted upon; (b) that more than 98 percent of the voting members approved a resolution disaffiliating from the UE and affiliating with IUE-CIO; (c) that all officers of the former local and over 90 percent of the shop stewards joined in transferring affilia- 8Dick Brothers, Inc., 1054; General Electric Co., Case No. 3-RC-1042 (an appeals case, not reported in printed volumes of Board Decisions and Orders). The latter case involved the identical contract here in question. The same contract between the Employer and the Intervenor is current nationally at other plants of the Employer. 9Rohm R, Hass Company, 108 NLRB 1285, should be distinguished. The holding in that case that contracts terminable at will constitute a bar for the first 2 years would not apply to a contract, as involved here, which becomes termmable at will only after an initial fixed term. 10 Western Electric Company Incorporated, 94 NLRB 54. 1294 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD tion to the IUE-CIO; (d) that after the disaffiliation action, a new local was chartered by the IUE-CIO; and (e) that the Em- ployer was duly notified of the new local's claim to represent the employees as the result of the transfer of affiliation. It is clear that the organization of UE-Local 301 has been virtually depleted and that it is presently incapable of admin- istering the contract. Certainly, there is sufficient indication here that the bargaining relationship between the Employer and the representative of the employees has become so confused that it can no longer be said to promote stability in industrial relations . Under established precedent , the Board ' s contract- bar rules do not apply in such circumstances, and an immediate election is the remedy which would best resolve the conflicting claims of the two unions here involved." On the basis of a schism, therefore, I would hold the contract no bar. Member Peterson, concurring: I agree with my colleagues in directing an election despite the existence of a contract between the Employer and the UE which does not expire until April 1, 1955. I do so , however, only because I regard the facts here to be governed by the special schism rule announced by the Board in the A. C. Lawrence case 108 NLRB 546). Although I concurred on different grounds in that case, I now deem myself bound by that rule. 11 See Boston Machine Works Company, 89 NLRB 59; C & D Batteries, Inc., 107 NLRB 1405. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY (NEWARK LAMP WORKS, SEABOARD LAMP WORKS, NEWARK SERVICE DISTRICT) and INTERNATIONAL UNION OF ELECTRICAL, RADIO AND MACHINE WORKERS, CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 2-RC- 6468. June 10, 1954 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Jacob Lazarus, hearing officer.' The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.I 1 The petition and other formal papers are amended to show the correct name of the Em- ployer as it appears in the caption. 2United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America (UE), and Local 429, United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America (UE), herein called the UE, objected to a number of rulings made by the hearing officer which restricted the UE in its attempt to introduce evidence relating to the schism issue. As none of the proffered evidence is germane to our decision, we find it unnecessary to pass upon the correctness of the hearing officer's rulings. 108 NLRB No. 184. Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation