Day & Zimmerman, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 28, 1979

246 N.L.R.B. 1181 (N.L.R.B. 1979)

I)AY AND ZIMMERMAN, INC.
Day and Zimmerman. Inc. and Ernest B. Janes, Peti-
tioner and Local Union 2534, United Brotherhood
of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO.
Case 16-UD-38
December 28. 1979
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
BY CIAIRMAN FANNING ANI) MEMBERS JENKINS
AND PNI-.()
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(e)(1) of
the National Labor Relations Act. as amended, a
hearing was held before Hearing Officer Edward B.
Valverde of the National Labor Relations Board on
August 3, 1979. Following the hearing, the Regional
Director for Region 16 transferred this case to the
Board for decision. Thereafter, briefs were filed by
the Employer and by Local Union 2534, United
Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America.
AFL CIO. herein Millwrights.
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 rul-
ings 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 makes the following findings:
I. The Employer, Day and Zimmerman, Inc., a
Maryland corporation, is the operator of the Lone
Star Army Ammunition Plant. Texarkana, Texas. As
operator of the facility, it exerts a substantial impact
on national defense. During the 12 months preceding
the hearing, a representative period, the Employer
has performed national defense work in excess of
$50,000 and has shipped goods to points outside the
State of Texas valued in excess of $50,000. We find
that the Employer is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and that it
will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert juris-
diction herein.
2. The parties stipulated, and we find, that the
Millwrights is a labor organization within the mean-
ing of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. The Millwrights is the certified representative
for a unit of the Employer's millwrights and their ap-
prentices. Together with five other unions.' each certi-
' he unions re l.oca;l lnln 379. Brolherh.o.d o (arpeners and Joiners
of America I.xal L nlin 301. International BroltherhooJd , t-lectricall
Workers: Iocal 459. Brotherhood of Pinlcr and Alliedl Irades: l.i al
l nmon 237. I:nited Assoclamior n iI Journemen and ApprentIns ,I the
Plumbing and Pipefiltllg Industr and [ nw1 al I llin 57. Inler.naltltinal
Brotherh .. d of Ieamslers. ( h.aufleurs. W arehoehmi en .l lt[ Idl mpeTs ot
fied to represent a separate unit, the Millwrights is
signatory to a collective-bargaining agreement which
expires on April 15. 1981.
The agreement states in its preamble that the six
signatory unions are "hereinafter collectively referred
to as the 'Union.' " It contains "general" provisions,
jointly negotiated by the signatory union, which ap-
ply to all employees in the units covered by the agree-
ment regardless of their certified representative.
These provisions include, but are not limited to, work
week, overtime, grievance and arbitration, vacations,
sick leave, pension, and union security. The union-
security clause requires that dues be paid to the
"Union." The agreement also contains "special" con-
ditions negotiated individually by each union on be-
half of the employees in the unit for which it is certi-
fied. "Special" conditions include pay scale, work
jurisdiction, and seniority. As to these spearately ne-
gotiated conditions, however, the agreement provides
that any benefit granted one signatory union will be
made available to the others. Further, the agreement,
pursuant to its own terms, was ratified by each signa-
tory union's international.
The Petitioner seeks a deauthorization election
among the employees in the unit for which the Mill-
wrights is the certified representative. The Mill-
wrights contends that the petition should be dis-
missed since it seeks an election in a unit which is not
coextensive with the contractually defined unit. The
Millwrights argues that, under the current collective-
bargaining agreement, its separate, certified unit has
merged with the separate units represented by the
other five signatory unions to form a single unit cov-
ered by the existing union-security clause. We dis-
agree.
Despite the current agreement's use of the general
term "Union" in reference to the six signatory unions,
and the existence of jointly negotiated conditions ap-
plicable to all employees in the six units covered, the
agreement provides that each signatory union recog-
nized only as the representative of the unit for which
it is certified. Thus, the recognition clause of the
agreement states:
Section 1. The Company recognizes that each
of the Contracting Unions to the Agreement
have been certified by the National abor Rela-
tions Board as the exclusive representative for
purposes of collective bargaining with respect to
rates of pay. wages, hours of employment and
other working conditions for a specific unit or
units of employees employed by the Company at
the I.one Star Army Ammunition Plant. It is un-
derstood that each of the said Contracting
.\merlcl Ihe record rexea Is that Ihere are other unions representing units ot
thIe llph oei's nlphlo, s hlch are iot part, to this prticular agreement
246 NLRB No. 169
1181
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Unions represents only the employees included
in the unit or units certified to such Union by the
National Labor Relations Board and that each
of the Contracting Unions is contracting only for
the employees it so represents.
Section 2. The unit or units certified to each of
the Contracting Unions are defined in the special
provisions of this Contract. Conditions appli-
cable only to employees in a particular unit or
units represented by one of the Contracting
Unions are set out in the special provisions of
this Agreement and are made a part of this
Agreement.
This language established that the parties, by en-
gaging in joint negotiations, did not intend that the
six signatory unions serve as joint representative of
the employees covered by the agreement. 2
Moreover, there is no evidence that any of the
unions have engaged in conduct inconsistent with
their status as separate representatives of distinct
units. Thus, the employees voted on the agreement in
'This case is therefore distinguishable from Hall-Scotl, Inc., 120 NLRB
1364 ( 1958). In that case, the contract stated that the employer recognized a
number of unions collectively as the representative of its employees. Unlike
Hall-Scott. we place little weight on the agreement's use of the general term
"Union." Rather, in light of the express language of the recognition clause,
we read the agreement's preamble as intending that the term "Union" refer
to the signatory unions severally as well as jointly.
their respective units. Also, in administering the
agreement, the unions only assist or jointly partici-
pate in grievances which pertain to the "general" con-
ditions, while grievances pertaining to "special" con-
ditions are processed solely by the union involved. In
fact, various signatory unions have opposed one an-
other on grievances pertaining to work jurisdiction.
Since the agreement expressly limits the Employer's
recognition of the Millwrights to the unit for which it
is certified, and the agreement has not been adminis-
tered in a manner indicative of a merged unit, as op-
posed to separate bargaining units, we find that the
unit appropriate for the requested deauthorization
election to be the one certified by the Board. We
shall, therefore, direct the election in the certified
unit:
INCLUDED: All Millwrights and their appren-
tices employed by the Employer at its Lone
Star Army Ammunition Plant in Texarkana.
Texas.
EXCLUDED: All other employees, office cleri-
cal employees, professional employees, guards,
watchmen, and all supervisors as defined in
the Act.
[Direction of Election and Excelsior footnote
omitted from publication.]
1182