Credit Union National Association, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 11, 1972

199 N.L.R.B. 682 (N.L.R.B. 1972)

682 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Credit Union National Association, Inc. and Office &
Professional Employees International Union, Local
No. 39, AFL-CIO. Case 30-UC-77
October 11, 1972
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS FANNING AND
JENKINS
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(b)
and (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, a hearing was held before Hearing Officer
Shirley A. Bednarz. Following the hearing and pur-
suant to Section 102.67 of the National Labor Rela-
tions Board Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as
amended, and by direction of the Regional Director
for Region 13, this proceeding was transferred to the
Board for decision. Thereafter, the Union filed a brief
in support of its position.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's
rulings made at the hearing and finds that they are
free from prejudicial error. They are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this proceeding, the
Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the Act, and it will effectuate the
purpose of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
2. The labor organization involved claims to rep-
resent certain employees of the Employer.
3. The Employer is a Wisconsin corporation, en-
gaged in providing consultation and training services
to credit union leagues located throughout the United
States, with its principal offices and place of business
located in Madison, Wisconsin. Petitioner was orgi-
nally certified by the Board in 1948 (Case 31-
UA-0442) following a consent election. The unit in-
cluded the following employees: "All office
employees and bindery workers, cutters, shipping
clerks and general shop helpers of the CUNA Supply
Cooperative and the building and maintenance per-
sonnel of the Credit Union National Association, ex-
cluding all other employees."
Since 1940 the parties have entered into a series
of continuous collective-bargaining agreements, the
latest of which is the 1971 contract in which the inclu-
sions or exclusions are confined to the following clas-
sifications: administrative assistant in public relations
department, risk management administrative assist-
ant, public relations projects manager, public rela-
tions feature editor, editorial feature writer, risk
management specialist, pension plan specialist, news
manager public relations, and assistant editor pub-
lications.
In November 1971, the Union and the Employer
entered into a memorandum of agreement providing
for the immediate inclusion of certain classifications
and continued exclusion of others. Thereafter, when
the employees in the classifications involved contin-
ued to question their inclusion in the unit, the Em-
ployer, concerned with their unrest, filed the instant
petition seeking unit clarification' on behalf of the
complaining employees.
While the Board has in the past entertained UC
petitions, we are persuaded that under all of the cir-
cumstances present herein, particularly the fact that
both the Union and the Employer have voluntarily
entered into an agreement with respect to the unit
inclusions and exclusions,2 to clarify the unit at this
time would be disruptive of the existing bargaining
agreement voluntarily entered into. Cf. Northwest
Publications, Inc., 197 NLRB No. 32. Accordingly, we
shall dismiss the petition.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board hereby orders that the Employer's peti-
tion herein be dismissed.
1 The parties agreed to proceed to hearing and invite the employees to
participate in order that any questions involving unit placement could be
resolved in their presence During the hearing, however, the Union made a
motion to dismiss the petition on grounds that all placement questions had
been resolved through mutual agreement between the Employer and Union.
2 We note that though the administrative assistant to the , public relations
department was included in the unit in the November 24, 1971, memo-
randum of agreement , both the Employer and Union have agreed that this
position is supervisory and as such should have been excluded . As the present
position of the parties is tantamount to an agreement to amend the original
agreement, it too is to be regarded as a product of collective -bargaining
negotiations leading to resolution of all placement issues
199 NLRB No. 72