Aerojet-General Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 3, 1963

144 N.L.R.B. 368 (N.L.R.B. 1963)

368 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a con-
dition of employment as authorized in Section 8(a) (3) of the Act.
CRAIG-BOTETOURT ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
NOTE: We will notify the above-named employees if presently serving in the
Armed Forces of the United States of their right to full reinstatement upon applica-
tion in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training
and Service Act of 1948 , as amended , after discharge from the Armed Forces.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered , defaced , or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office, Sixth
Floor , 707 North Calvert Street, Baltimore, Maryland, Telephone No. 752-8460,
Extension 2100 , if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with
its provisions.
Aerojet-General Corporation and United Missile and Aerospace
Technicians, Petitioner. Case No. 2O-RC-5244. September 3,
1963
DECISION ON REVIEW AND ORDER
On January 9, 1963, the Regional Director for the Twentieth Re-
gion issued a Decision and Direction of Election in the above-entitled
proceeding. Thereafter, the International Association of Machinists,
AFL-CIO, and its Local Lodge 946, herein called the Intervenors or
IAM, filed with the Board, in accordance with Section 102.67 of the
Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, a timely request
for review on the ground, inter alia, that a substantial question of law
or policy was presented here as to whether an election in this case
should, be barred because of the Government's intervention in
collective-bargaining negotiations between the Employer and IAM,
the recognized bargaining agent.' The Board, by telegraphic order
dated January 30, 1963, granted the request for review and stayed the
election.
The Board has considered the entire record 2 in this case and makes
the following findings :
The Employer is a prime contractor of the U.S. Air Force for the
development and production of missiles and rockets. IAM was first
certified by the Board in a production and maintenance unit at the
Employer's original plant in Pasadena in 1944. Since that time the
unit has been enlarged pursuant to agreement by the parties or on
i As an additional ground for review IAM contended that Petitioner was not a labor
organization within the meaning of the Act, because It allegedly is merely a "paper corpora-
tion" and lacks the indicia of a labor organization found in certain sections of the Labor-
Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 . For the reasons noted In Alto Plastic
Manufacturing Corporation , 136 NLRB 850 , 854; and Hamilton Brothers Inc., 133 NLRB
868, 872, we agree with the Regional Director that these contentions lack merit.
2 We deny the Petitioner's request for oral argument because, in our opinion , the record
and briefs adequately set forth the positions of the parties.
144 NLRB No. 42.
AEROJET-GENERAL CORPORATION 369
the basis of representation elections. The last expired contract be-
tween Aerojet and IAM was for the period May 28, 1960, through
May 27, 1962. Negotiations for a new agreement commenced in
March 1962, but as of May 27, 1962, bargaining was still continuing.
Accordingly, the old agreement was extended on a day-to-day basis
subject to 24-hour notice of termination. Bargaining continued into
July.
On July 21, 1962, the Director of the Federal Mediation and Con-
ciliation Service advised the President of the United States that there
was a complete stalemate in collective-bargaining negotiations between
IAM and the Employer. The President then sent a wire to IAM in
which he stated "... Major strikes in this industry would substan-
tially delay our vital missile and space programs and would be con-
trary to the national interest . . . ." The President informed JAM
that he was appointing a board of distnnbuished citizens, headed by
George W. Taylor, to assist the parties in their negotiations and to
make recommendations. IAM then advised the Employer that all
strike sanctions would be held in abeyance for 60 days while the
Taylor board proceeded with its efforts for an amicable settlement.
The board conferred with the parties, and on September 7 announced
its findings and recommendations to the President and to the parties.
The next day, the Employer formally submitted a contract proposal
to the JAM, which in turn submitted it to its membership for ratifica-
tion. By majority vote of the membership the proposal was rejected
on September 30.
Thereafter, IAM gave Aerojet 24 hours' notice, and struck on
October 2 for improved contract terms. On the same day, the Secre-
tary of Labor intervened, requested IAM to call off its strike, and
asked all parties to appear as soon as possible in Washington, D.C.,
for further negotiations. On October 4 the parties entered into an
interim strike settlement agreement and resumed bargaining at the
Office of the Secretary. These negotiations concluded on October 11
with a proposal from the Employer, and IAM agreed to take the pro-
posal to its membership with a recommendation that it be ratified.
The proposed agreement was presented at separate meetings of the
Employer's Sacramento and Azusa employees on October 28. The
matter was brought to a vote and the new proposal was rejected by a
majority of the combined vote of the employees at both plants. During
the following week there were at least two more meetings between IAM
and the Employer at which further proposals were discussed, but with-
out agreement. On November 6, the Azusa employees accepted with-
out change the proposal that had been rejected on October 28.
On November 7 the Petitioner filed the instant petition, seeking
an election only at the Sacramento plant. On November 13 IAM
370 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
negotiating committee decided to poll the Sacramento employees by
mail on the proposal rejected at the employee meeting of October 28.
The proposal, with a minor change,3 was accordingly submitted on
November 15 to the Sacramento employees who voted to accept it. On
November 24, the Employer and IAM executed for Sacramento the
same agreement that the Azusa employees had already ratified on
November 6.
The Regional Director concluded that the petition was timely, hav-
ing been filed after the expiration date of the old agreement and be-
fore execution of a new one, and therefore directed an immediate elec-
tion. In seeking review, IAM argues that the Board should institute a
policy in the aerospace industry of not entertaining the petitions of
rival unions filed during Federal intervention in the course of collective
bargaining between an employer and an incumbent union. The Peti-
tioner in response contends, primarily, that the promulgation of such a
rule would deprive the employees of rights guaranteed by Sections
7 and 9 of the Act freely to designate representatives of their own
choosing. Although the Petitioner concedes that the Board has au-
thority to suspend these rights in some circumstances, it argues that no
exception to existing bar rules is warranted here. The Employer has
not expressed its views.
In this case we are faced, as we frequently are, with the problem
of weighing and resolving the conflicting interests of maintaining
stability in an existing bargaining relationship and of protecting the
freedom of employees to change their representatives.'
In concluding that the petition was timely filed, the Regional Direc-
tor in effect ruled the freedom of choice interest paramount in this
case. Our view is different. The Regional Director based his con-
clusion on existing Board precedents spelling out the rules to which
the Board normally adheres with respect to the timeliness of rep-
resentation petitions aimed at unseating an established bargaining
agent. These rules, which are designed to strike a proper balance
between the two competing interests stated above, are based upon the
Board's evaluation of the considerations present in the variety of fac-
tual situations that normally come before the Board. But they are not
to be regarded as so inflexible in their application as totally to exclude
deviation therefrom in situations where extraordinary considerations
compel a different result. Cf. N.L.R.B. v. Libbey-Owens-Ford Glass
Company and L-O-F Glass Fibers Company, 241 F. 2d 831, 836
(C.A. 4).
3 The change concerned the workweek of some 30 employees in the Employer's Nitro-
plasticizer plant.
4 See, e . g, The Trailer Company of America, et al., 51 NLRB 1106
AEROJET-GENERAL CORPORATION 371
The instant case, we believe, presents such a special situation : it
superimposes important considerations relating to national policy upon
the considerations the Board is normally called upon to evaluate in
determining whether at a given time the need for continuing stability
in labor relations outweighs the employees' interest in freedom of
choice. Here, after normal negotiations had run their course and the
Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service had been unsuccessful in
its efforts to bring about a resolution of the contract dispute between
IAM and the Employer, the President of the United States and Sec-
retary of Labor found it necessary in the national interest to intervene
and to set up special procedures for the resolution of the contract
dispute in order to avert the serious damage to the Nation's vital
missile and rocket program that a strike would have caused.
The interventions occurred when no question concerning the con-
tinued representative status of the IAM had yet been raised. IAM,
responding to the needs of the Nation, cooperated with the expressed
desire of the President of the United States and the Secretary of
Labor to seek a peaceable solution to the dispute, and toward that
end it agreed to withhold strike action while intervention was pend-
ing. It was not until after the intervention efforts of the Secretary
of Labor had succeeded in accomplishing a settlement at the nego-
tiation level, and while IAM was still continuing its efforts to gain
employee approval of the settlement, that the petition herein was filed.
The contract which was subsequently executed was based on the
settlement reached through the procedures sponsored by the Secre-
tary of Labor.
In the particular circumstances of this case, we do not believe it
would be in the national interest to direct an election based on the
present petition. Administration of the National Labor Relations
Act, it must be remembered, is an important, but not the sole, instru-
ment of our national labor policy. Although exclusive jurisdiction
over representation matters has been committed to the Board, we do
not regard this as a license to carry out our responsibilities with
myopic disregard for other important considerations affecting the
national interest and well-being.' We have in the past in appropriate
situations taken into account and sought to accommodate our pro-
ceedings to other instruments of the national labor policy.6 We be-
lieve that this also is such a situation.
6 See Southern Steamship Company v. N L.R.B., 316 U.S. 31, 47.
6 Spielberg Manufacturing Company, 112 NLRB 1080, 1082; International Harvester
Company (Indianapolis Works), 138 NLRB 923; The West Indian Co., Ltd., 129 NLRB
1203, 1204; Allis-Chalmers Manufacturing Company, 50 NLRB 306, 310; Raley's Inc.
d/b/a Raley's Supermarkets, 143 NLRB 256
727-083-64-vol. 144-25
372 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
For us to hold on the facts of this case that an entertainable ques-
tion concerning representation was raised by the filing of the petition
simply because the settlement reached had not yet been consummated
by written agreement, would be to act at cross-purposes with, and
possibly impede,1 the Government-sponsored procedures that were
set up to, and did, maintain industrial peace and stability in the
critical defense industry here involved. An election conducted at
the present time might also serve to undo the successful efforts of
the Secretary of Labor and create uncertainty and unsettled bar-
gaining conditions for an indeterminate time.8
If an election were directed on the present petition, it would also
serve, in our opinion, to penalize the IAM for having cooperated
with the urgent request of the President of the United States and
the Secretary of Labor to surrender its rights to strike while Gov-
ernment intervention was effective. But for its no-strike commitment
after expiration of the old agreement, the IAM could have been in
a position to bring full economic pressure to bear on the Employer
in support of its bargaining demands. It is quite possible that the
IAM might therby have hastened a favorable settlement and con-
cluded a contract before the petition was filed. And it may also
well be, for all we know, that the IAM might thereby have left itself
less vulnerable to those employee dissatisfactions which led to de-
fections to the rival union and the filing of the petition. In assessing
the relative weights to be given to the competing interests of stability
and freedom of choice, we also take into account that a denial to
unions of protection against new representation challenges under
circumstances such as are here present may serve to discourage unions
in comparable future situations from acceding to Presidential re-
quests to forgo strike action.
For the reasons set out above, we conclude in the particular cir-
cumstances of this case that, on balance, the public interest in stability
outweighs the employees' interest in freedom of choice, and that it
would best effectuate the purposes of the Act here to dismiss the
petition.
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
MEMBERS FANNING and JENKINS took no part in the consideration
of the above Decision on Review and Order.
7 iCf. Midwest Piping & Supply Co., Inc, 63 NLRB 1060, 1070.
8 We have been advised by the Petitioner that If successful in winning the election it
seeks , it will be willing to enter into an agreement containing the same terms and condi-
tions as those in IAM's present contract with the Employer . Even if it were to be
assumed that we had the power to condition an election on that basis , this would still
not meet a basic objection to entertaining a representation petition in the circumstances
here present-its unsettling effect on the Government-sponsored negotiations in progress
at the time of the filing.