Harris Products Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 5, 1952

100 N.L.R.B. 1036 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

1036 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
units, which the Board, in such circumstances, finds to be appropriate
for purposes of collective bargaining. If a majority of employees in
voting groups (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), or (6) select the labor organiza-
tion chosen by a majority of employees in voting group (7), those em-
ployees will be taken to have indicated their desire to constitute part
of the production and maintenance unit and the Regional Director
conducting the election is instructed to issue a certification of repre-
sentatives to the labor organization selected by the employees in such
groups, which the Board, in such circumstances, finds to be a single
unit appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining.
Order
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petitions filed in Case No. 6-RC-1008,
by Local 549 International Association of Bridge, Structural and
Ornamental Iron Workers, AFL, and in Case No. 6-RC-962 by the
Brotherhood of Painters, Decorators, and Paper Hangers of America,
Local Union No. 850, AFL, and in Case No. 6-RC-1047 •by United
Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and
Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local Union
No. 152, AFL, and in Cases Nos. 6-RC-1016, 6-RC-1017, and 6-RC-
1019 by the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America,
Local 1369, AFL, be, and they hereby are, dismissed.
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication in this
volume.]
HARRIS PRODUCTS COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED
AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT & AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF
AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER . Cases Nos. 8-RC-1626, 8-RC-1627,
and 8-EC-1628. September 5, 19592
Decision, Order, and Direction of Election
Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the
National Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before
Carroll L. Martin, hearing officer. - The hearing officer's rulings made
at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.'
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with these cases to a three-
1 Pursuant to a stipulati ^n of the parties at the hearing , the Intervenor after the close
of the hearing submitted to the hearing officer an exhibit relating to the prevalence of
5-year contracts in the automotive industry. The Petitioner by letter objected to this
exhibit as irrelevant, and in turn submitted an exhibit of its own relating to the same
subject matter . We do not pass upon the admissibility of this evidence because, as we
find bel ^w, the Intervenor 's current contract may not operate as a bar to this proceeding
for reasons other than its 5-year term.
100 NLRB No. 155.
HARRIS PRODUCTS COMPANY 1037
member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Styles and Peter-
son].
Upon the entire record in these cases, 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 em-
ployees of the Employer.2
3. At the hearing and in their briefs the Intervenor and the Em-
ployer contend that the petitions should be dismissed upon the ground,
among others, that their current contract is a bar to this proceeding.
Following a card check for the purpose of determining the Inter-
venor's majority status, the Employer and the Intervenor executed
a 2-year contract on July 13, 1950, recognizing the Intervenor as the
exclusive bargaining representative of the Employer's production and
maintenance employees at its Milan and Cleveland, Ohio, plants.
On November 6, 1950, the contracting parties by mutual agreement
executed a new contract which, among other things, extended 'the
contract term to July 13, 1955. The Intervenor and the Employer
assert that this supplemental agreement is a bar to the petition which
was filed on March 21, 1952.
The Intervenor contends that the usual Board policy against holding
a prematurely extended contract to constitute a bar to a determination
of representatives beyond the expiration date of the original contract,
should not be applied to contracts which were extended, as in this case,
during the first year after voluntary recognition by the Employer.
The Intervenor cites the Quaker Maid case,3 among others, wherein
the Board held that the premature extension doctrine does not apply
during the year following certification. In that case the Board stated :
The rule rests on the principle that, during the 1-year period
following certification, the employer has the duty of bargaining
in good faith with the certified union and that it would be entirely
inconsistent for the Board to require an employer to negotiate
with the certified union concerning an agreement while withhold-
ing power from the parties to make an agreement for a reasonable
period effective against the claim of a rival union.
The Intervenor contends that the same rationale should apply to
the first recognition year; that is, that the Employer has the same duty
to bargain when the majority representative is apparent without an
election. The Board has, however, limited this exception to the cer-
tification year and has been unwilling in the past to extend this excep-
tion to contracts prematurely extended during the first year after
2 Mechanics Educational Society of America and Its Local 59 were permitted to inter-
vene on the basis of a contract with the Employer covering employees in the proposed
units.
9 Quaker Maid Company, Inc., 71 NLRB 915.
1038 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
voluntary recognition .4 Moreover, we have heretofore held, under
other circumstances, that a card check is not entitled to the conclusive
effect normally given to a certification of representatives based on a
Board-directed election.,' As the new contract was a premature exten-
sion of the original contract, whose term has now expired, we find no
bar to a present determination of representatives.6
A question affecting commerce exists in Case No. 8-RC-1628 con-
cerning the representation of employees of the Employer within the
meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
However, for the reasons set forth in paragraph numbered 4, below,
we find that no question concerning representation exists in Cases
Nos. 8-RC-1626 and 8-RC-1627.
4. In Cases Nos. 8-RC-1626 and 8-RC-1627, the Petitioner seeks to
represent in separate units the production and maintenance employees,
in the Employer's Milan and Cleveland, Ohio, plants, respectively.
In Case No. 8-RC-1628, the Petitioner, as an alternative choice, seeks
to represent these employees in a single multiplant unit. The Em-
ployer and the Intervenor, at the hearing and in their briefs, agree on,
the unit composition, but contend that the existing two-plant unit is
alone appropriate.
The Employer, an Ohio corporation engaged in the manufacture of
automotive parts, is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Cleveland
Graphite Bronze Company. The Cleveland plant manufactures auto-
mobile parts such as spring shackle parts and rubber-backed bearings,
and the Milan plant manufactures rubber automotive bushings and
silent block inserts. The plants are approximately 55 miles apart and
frequent contact between the plants is maintained by telephone.
Approximately 45 percent of the products manufactured at Milan is
shipped to Cleveland, where it becomes an integral part of the -final
product. The policy for production, purchasing, scheduling, sales,
and personnel is promulgated in the Cleveland plant. Orders from
customers are received in Cleveland and are then referred to the Milan
plant . The Cleveland office takes care of the accounting and payroll
work, although the checks are returned to the Milan plant before dis-
tribution to the employees.
The manager of the Milan plant hires and fires employees in routine
uses and settles grievances. However;-all policy -decisions with re-
gard to expansion or contraction of the work force are made by the
works manager in Cleveland. The Employer's present contract with
4 See The Reliance Electric and Engineering Company, 89 NLRB 98 ; Sprague Electric
Company, 98 NLRB 533; Bethlehem Steel Company, Shipbuilding Divi8ion, 86 NLRB 577.
a National Waste Material Corp., 93 NLRB 477, and cases cited therein ; Arrow, Hart 4
Hegeman Electric Company, Inc.,.77 NLRB 258.
In view of our disposition of the contract bar issue, it becomes unnecessary to, and
we do . not, pass upon the Petitioner 's other contentions that the contract is not a bar
because of a schism in the ranks of the Intervenor and because the contract is of unreason-
able duration. -
HARRIS PRODUCTS COMPANY 1039
the Intervenor provides for one grievance committee consisting of two
members from each plant, one of whom is the chairman. Although
the members from each plant settle their respective plant grievances
locally, at least in the earlier stages, unsettled grievances are brought
before the personnel director, and contract negotiations are conducted
in Cleveland by the entire committee.
Job classification rates for both plants were established as a result
of a job evaluation study and, although the wage rates are lower
in the Milan plant and the skills are different, all employees receive
the same fringe benefits such as vacations, paid holidays, call-in
pay, overtime, and shift differentials. Although there has been no
interchange of employees, there have been several permanent transfers
from one plant to the other, the Intervenor's contract providing for
company-wide and occupational seniority.
In view of the integration of operations of the two plants and
the unified control of management policies and labor relations, as
well as the 2-year bargaining history in a single two-plant unit, we
find that only a multiplant unit is appropriate in this case.7 We shall
therefore dismiss the petitions requesting single plant units in Cases
Nos. 8-RC-1626 and 8-RC-1627. As the Petitioner has requested a
single, two-plant unit in Case No. 8-RC-1628, we shall direct an
election in the multiplant unit hereinafter described.
We find, in accordance with the agreement' of the parties, that
the following employees of the Employer's Milan and Cleveland,
Ohio, plants constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of col-
lective bargaining: All production and maintenance employees, ex-
cluding office clerical employees, outside truck drivers, salaried factory
employees, technical employees, guards, and supervisors as defined
in the Act.
5. The Petitioner contends that certain laid-off employees should
be eligible to vote. The position of the Employer and the Intervenor
is not clear. In December 1951 and February 1952, as a result of
a decrease in business, the Employer reduced its working force by
laying off approximately 19 employees who have not been recalled.
The reemployment of these persons depends upon improved business
conditions, and it does not appear that any of these employees will
be recalled at any fixed date in the future.
Under the terms of the present collective bargaining contract with
the Intervenor, all laid-off employees are carried on a seniority list
for 1 year, and must be recalled for jobs which they can perform
satisfactorily before any new employees are hired. The Petitioner
^ Mixer and Company, 86 NLRB 656; 11ashbille Wire Products Manufacturing Co., 89
NLRB 135, Kindly Optical Company, 85 NLRB 940; Central Cooperative Wholesale, 93
NLRB 1 ; Glass Fibers, Inc., 93 NLRB 1289; The Permanents Metals Corporation, 89
NLRB 804.
1()40 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
contends that any employee who is on the seniority list and eligible
for recall is entitled to vote.
The Board has heretofore held that the mere fact that laid-off
employees have contractual seniority rights does not entitle them to
vote, but rather the test of the right to vote is whether they have a
reasonable expectation of reemployement in the near future.8 The
record shows that the employees under consideration have no such
expectancy of recall. Accordingly, we find that, as there is no rea-
sonable prospect of reemployment of the employees in question, they
are ineligible to participate in the election.
Order
IT Is HEREBY ORDERED that the petitions filed in Cases Nos. 8-RC--
1626 and 8-RC-1627 be, and they hereby are, dismissed.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
8 General Motors Corporation, 92 NLRB 1752 ; Igieheart Brothers Division General
Foods Corporation, 96 NLRB 1005 ; Vulcan Tin Can Co., 97 NLRB 180.
INDIANA METAL PRODUCTS CORPORATION and INTERNATIONAL UNION,
UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT
WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO. Case No. 11-CA-549. September 8,
1953
Decision and Order
On December 28, 1951, Trial Examiner Earl S. Bellman issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair
labor practices, and recommending that the Respondent cease and
desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in
the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. He also found
that the Respondent had not engaged in certain other unfair labor
practices alleged in the complaint and recommended dismissal of those
allegations. Thereafter, the Respondent and the Union each filed.
exceptions to the Intermediate Report, with a supporting brief.,
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Members Houston, Styles, and
Peterson] .
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner at the
hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The,
' A copy of its brief before the Trial Examiner was also filed by the Respondent in
support of its exceptions.
100 NLRB No. 161.