General Electric Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 16, 1952

99 N.L.R.B. 955 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY 955
bility in the event that the Board should find, upon application of its
own contract bar principles, that the contract was rendered inoperative
as a bar and another union certified. Accordingly, in the absence
of a provision containing clear and unmistakable language to the
effect that the parties waive the application of the Board's contract
bar doctrine to the filing of a rival petition; we find that the Inter-
venors' contract with the Employer is a bar to an election in this case,
and we shall dismiss the petitions filed herein.
Order
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petitions filed herein be, and they
hereby are, dismissed.
CHAIRMAN IIERZOG and MEMBER STYLES took no part in the con-
sideration of the above Decision and Order.
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, DETROIT APPARATUS SHOP and INTER-
NATIONAL UNION OF ELECTRICAL, RADIO, AND MACHINE WORKERS,
CIO, PETITIONER
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, DETROIT APPARATUS SHOP and T. G.
HARTMANN, PETITIONER and UNITED ELECTRICAL, RADIO AND
MACHINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL 937 (UE). Cases Nos.
7-RC-1618 and 7-RD-10.9. May 16, 1952
Decision and Order
Upon petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before W. A. Reinke,
hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are
free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
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 employees
of the Employer.
Both petitioners seek an election in a unit of employees at the
Employer's Detroit apparatus department service shop, Detroit,
Michigan. The United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of
America (UE) and its Local 937, herein called the Intervenors,
contend that the U. E.'s national agreement with the Employer,
which is terminable upon 90 days' notice prior to September 15, 1952,
is a bar to an election in these cases. The Petitioners and the Em-
ployer contend, however, that the agreement contains specific pro-
99 NLRB No. 37.
956 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
visions rendering the contract inoperative as a bar to elections during
its term.
The Board has considered these conflicting contentions in another
case,l decided this day, which involved the same contract, Employer,
and Unions. As we stated in that case, we find nothing in the pro-
visions relied upon by the Employer and the Petitioners which would
justify a construction of those provisions as a general waiver of the
Board's contract bar doctrine. We believe those provisions can
more reasonably be construed as relieving the Employer of contrac-
tual liability in the event that the Board should find, upon applica-
tion of its own contract bar principles, that the contract was rendered
inoperative as 'a bar and another union certified as the bargaining
representative in the unit here sought. Accordingly, in the absence
of a provision containing clear and unmistakable language-to the
effect that the parties waive the application of the Board's contract
bar doctrine to the filing of a rival petition, we find that the Inter-
venor's contract with the Employer is a bar to an election in this case,
and we shall dismiss the petitions filed herein.
Order
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petitions filed herein be, and they
hereby are, dismissed.
CHAIRMAN HERZOG and MEMBER STYLES took no part in the
consideration of the above Decision and Order.
'General Electric Company , 99 NLRB 155.
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL UNION OF ELECTRI-
CAL, RADIO AND MACHINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER.
Case No. 2RC-4122. May 16, 1952
Decision and Order
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before I. L. Broadwin, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from
prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
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 employees
of the Employer.
99 NLRB No. 38.