Gould-National Batteries, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 28, 1964

146 N.L.R.B. 1138 (N.L.R.B. 1964)

1138 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
RECOMMENDED ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that the complaint herein be , and it hereby is, dismissed.
Gould-National Batteries, Inc. and District 50, United Mine
Workers of America , Petitioner. Case No. 17-RC-4316. April
28, 1964
DECISION ON REVIEW
On November 21, 1963, the Regional Director for the Seventeenth
Region issued a Decision and Order in the above-entitled proceeding,
dismissing the petition for a single-plant unit on the ground that there
was a history of multiplant bargaining which included the instant
plant. Thereafter, the Employer in accordance with Section 102.67
of the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, filed with
the Board a timely request for review of such decision on the ground
that the bargaining history was on a single plant basis rather than a
multiplant basis. On December 31, 1963, the Board granted the re-
quest for review. Briefs on review were filed by the Petitioner and
by International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, and its Local
1056, AFL-CIO, and Gould Battery Workers Council, E. M.-2,
Intervenors.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Leedom and Brown].
The Board has considered the entire record in this case, together
with the parties' briefs, and finds as follows :
In support of their position that the bargaining history was on a
single-plant basis rather than a multiplant basis, the Employer and
the Petitioner point to, inter alia, the fact that the 1961-63 contract,
by its terms, is between the Employer and each of the 13 named locals,
and has different effective and termination dates for each local. How-
ever, we agree with the Regional Director that the record contains
numerous other circumstances which on balance clearly establish a his-
tory of multiplant bargaining. Thus, since 1950 negotiations have
been conducted on a centralized basis, with the Gould Battery Work-
ers Council, E. M.-2, representing and bargaining for the locals of
the Intervenors. The negotiations have resulted in a complete, single
master agreement, covering wages, hours, and working conditions at
the named plants, and there was no authority for execution of supple-
mental agreements by any local at the plant level.' The 1961-63 con-
I Indeed , on two occasions when the local at Leavenworth attempted to negotiate a
supplemental agreement , the International countermanded such action and the local
acquiesced.
146 NLRB No. 131.
GENERAL INDUSTRIES ELECTRONICS COMPANY 1139
tract is signed by the Employer, by two International IBEW rep-
resentatives, and by the four-man negotiating committee of the Coun-
cil, and becomes binding upon ratification by a majority of the locals.
Also, section 1, article III, thereof states that any units for which the
Union or its locals is certified, upon a certain procedure, shall be
covered by "This Agreement" ; and the recognition clause states that
"the unit [emphasis supplied], defined in the singular, consists of all
[emphasis supplied] production and maintenance employees, with
certain exclusions."
As the Leavenworth, Kansas, plant, has been covered at least since
May 15, 1961, by the master contract, we find that the multiplant
bargaining history is effective and controlling as to this plant .2 Ac-
cordingly, the Board affirms the Regional Director's determination
that the history of bargaining for the Leavenworth plant has been on
a multiplant basis, and his dismissal of the petition filed on October 9,
1963, for a single-plant unit.3
2 Univao Division of Remington Rand Division of Sperry Rand Corporation, 137
NLRB 1232.
3 We find no merit in the reliance of the Petitioner and the Employer on the General
Counsel 's ruling in Gould-National Batteries, Inc., Case No . 18-CA-1542 ( in which no
complaint was issued ), because consideration of the case appears to have been limited to
the question of principal and agent.
General Industries Electronics Company and International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, CLC, Peti-
tioner. Case No. 26-KC-2020. April 28, 1964
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF SECOND ELECTION
Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election,
an election by secret ballot was conducted on September 27, 1963,
under the supervision and direction of the Regional Director for the
Twenty-sixth Region, among employees in an agreed unit. Upon the
conclusion of the balloting, the parties were furnished with a tally of
ballots which showed that, of approximately 360 eligible voters, 94
cast valid ballots for, and 247 against the Petitioner. Thereafter,
the Petitioner filed timely objections to conduct affecting the results
of the election.
After an investigation, the Regional Director issued his report and
supplemental report on objections in which he recommended that
objections Nos. 3 and 4 be sustained, objections Nos. 1, 2, 5, 6, and 7
be overruled, and that the election be set aside and a new election
ordered. The Employer filed timely exceptions to the Regional
Director's report.
146 NLRB No. 115.