Inmont Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 29, 1984

268 N.L.R.B. 1442 (N.L.R.B. 1984)

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Inmont Corporation, Automotive Division, OEM
and Joseph J. Belanger.
Local 942, International Union, United Automobile,
Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers
of America (UAW) and Joseph J. Belanger.
Cases 7-CA-20241 and 7-CB-5387
29 February 1984
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS
ZIMMERMAN AND DENNIS
On 6 May 1983 Administrative Law Judge
Donald R. Holley issued the attached decision. The
General Counsel filed exceptions and a supporting
brief and the Respondent Union filed cross-excep-
tions and a supporting brief.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegat-
ed its authority in this proceeding to a three-
member panel.
The Board has considered the decision and
record in light of the exceptions and briefs and has
decided to affirm the judge's rulings, findings, and
conclusions only to the extent consistent herewith.
The complaint alleges that Respondent Local
942, International Union, United Automobile,
Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of
America (UAW), hereinafter referred to as Re-
spondent Union, and Respondent Inmont Corpora-
tion, Automotive Division, OEM, hereinafter re-
ferred to as Respondent Employer, violated Sec-
tion 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) and Section 8(a)(3) and (1)
of the Act, respectively, by maintaining and en-
forcing a provision in their collective-bargaining
agreement which grants superseniority for purposes
of layoff and recall preference to certain of Re-
spondent Union's officials. The complaint places in
issue the grant of superseniority under article VII,
section 6, to three trustees and the sergeant-at-
arms. The judge found that Respondent Union's of-
ficers and officials named in the complaint "engage
in significant in-plant activities which are directly
related to the processing of grievances and to the
administration of the collective-bargaining agree-
ment," and recommended dismissing the complaint
in its entirety, citing, inter alia, Gulton Electro-
Voice, 266 NLRB 406 (1983). For the reasons
stated below, we do not agree.
The facts are not in dispute. Since at least 1950,
successive collective-bargaining agreements be-
tween the parties have contained provisions which
accord superseniority to union officers and stew-
ards in matters relating to layoffs and recalls. The
superseniority provision' provides, in pertinent
part, that the Union's shop committeemen and offi-
cers "shall have plant-wide seniority (but not de-
partmental or classification seniority) over all em-
ployees during their term of office for the purpose
of the Layoff and Recall Procedure." Union offi-
cers covered under the superseniority provision in-
clude the following: the president, vice president,
recording secretary, financial secretary, sergeant-at-
arms, guide, three trustees, and the chief steward
on the night shift. During the period of 25 January
through 14 March 1982 Respondent Employer ex-
perienced layoffs in which the superseniority clause
was invoked by the union trustees and the ser-
geant-at-arms. Specifically, the record shows that
trustees Richard Phillips, William Martin, and
Dennis Uzan and sergeant-at-arms Mark Howell
each invoked the superseniority clause during the
period of employee layoffs. The parties stipulated
that, but for the fact that the three trustees and ser-
geant-at-arms invoked the contractual supersenior-
ity clause and thereby received preferential treat-
ment, normal or real seniority would have caused
the three trustees and the sergeant-at-arms to be
laid off instead of employees Joseph Belanger, Wil-
liam Crawford, Ronald Klopfer, and Edward
Litten.
As noted above, the judge recommended that
the complaint be dismissed, finding that the Re-
spondent's three trustees and sergeant-at-arms per-
formed duties entitling them to exercise supersen-
iority rights under the standards set forth in Gulton
Electro-Voice, supra. In Gulton, the Board conclud-
ed that:
We will find unlawful those grants of super-
seniority extending beyond those employees
responsible for grievance processing and on-
the-job contract adminstration. We will find
lawful only those superseniority provisions
limited to employees who, as agents of the
union, must be on the job to accomplish their
duties directly related to administering the col-
lective-bargaining agreement. 2
' The full text of the applicable contract provision, art. VII, sec. 6 is as
follows:
Shop Committeemen and Officers of Local No. 942, the total of both
not to exceed thirteen (13) in number, provided they are employees
of the Company, shall have plant-wide seniority (but not departmen-
tal or classification seniority) over all employees during their term of
office for the purpose of the Layoff and Recall Procedure. In addi-
tion, each member of the Shop Committee and the Vice-President of
Local No. 942 shall have day shift preference in any classification to
which he might be assigned under the provisions of Article VII, Sec-
tion 8, 9 or 10 during his term of office; and if he is not on the day
shift, he shall displace the employee with the least seniority in his
classification in his department on the day shift.
2 Guhton Electro- Voice, supra at 409.
268 NLRB No. 221
1442
INMONT CORP.
The judge examined all of the record evidence
concerning the official duties and functions of the
trustees and the sergeant-at-arms enunciated in the
International Union's constitution and Respondent
Union's bylaws and concluded that, standing alone,
the performance of those functions would not justi-
fy a lawful grant of superseniority to the individ-
uals occupying those positions. 3 No exceptions
were filed to these findings; accordingly, we adopt
them. However, the judge also examined the infor-
mal participation of the trustees and the sergeant-
at-arms in the processing of grievances and admin-
istration of the contract and their participation in
Respondent Union's executive board activities and
concluded that the performance of these activities
would justify a lawful grant of superseniority to
the individuals occupying those positions. In reach-
ing this conclusion, the judge found that the trust-
ees and the sergeant-at-arms, individually or as
members of the executive board, engage in the fol-
lowing "in plant" activities: 4 distribute and collect
"speak up slips" in the solicitation of suggestions
from the membership for contract proposals;
render informal opinions on matters involving con-
tract interpretation; meet twice each month, and on
other occasions when the need arises, in a commit-
tee office located in the plant, to discuss and re-
solve problems arising within the plant, including
employee discharges, safety matters, and situations
s Art. Xl, secs. 12 and 13 of the International Union's constitution sets
forth the duties and functions of Respondent Union's three trustees and
sergeant-at-arms as follows:
Trustees
Section 12. The trustees shall have general supervision over all funds
and property of the Local Union. They shall audit or cause to be
audited by a Certified Public Accountant selected by the Local
Union Executive Board, the records of the Financial Officers of the
Local Union semiannually as provided herein, using duplicate forms
provided by the International Union, a copy of which shall be for-
warded to the International Secretary-Treasurer immediately thereaf-
ter. It shall also be their duty to see that the Financial Officers of the
Local Union are bonded in conformity with the laws of the Interna-
tional Union. The Trustees shall see that all funds shall be deposited
in a bank subject to an order signed by the President and Treasurer
and/or Financial Secretary. In Local Unions where safety deposit
boxes are used, the Trustees shall see that the signatures of the Presi-
dent, Treasurer and one (1) of the Trustees are required before ad-
mittance to the safety deposit box is permitted. In the event the
books are not received for audit within fifteen (15) days after the end
of each six-month period, the Chairperson of the Trustees shall make
a report to the next meeting of the Local Union for action.
Sergeant-at-Arms
Section 13. It shall be the duty of the Sergeant-at-Arms to introduce
all new members and visitors and assist the President in preserving
order when called upon to do so. S/He shall also take charge of all
property of the Local Union not otherwise provided for, and per-
form such other duties as may be assigned to her/him from time to
time.
4 The record indicates that Respondent Union, as a result of negotia-
tions with Respondent Employer, maintains three offices located at Re-
spondent Employer's Inmont facility.
involving the removal of stewards; fill in for bar-
gaining committee members when the latter are out
of the plant conducting negotiations; and decide by
executive board vote whether fourth-step griev-
ances should be taken to arbitration and decide by
executive board vote whether to recommend that
the membership ratify or reject final contract pro-
posals. During the months of July, August, and
September, when no regular membership meetings
are conducted, the executive board conducts all the
business at meetings held in the plant.
Contrary to the judge, we find that none of the
duties performed by the trustees and the sergeant-
at-arms, either individually or as members of the
executive board, meets the standards set forth in
Gulton. With respect to trustees' and sergeant-at-
arms' "in plant" activities relied on by the judge in
reaching his conclusions, we find that the evidence
fails to establish that these activities constitute day-
to-day administration of the collective-bargaining
agreement or involve the exercise of "steward-like
duties."5 In this connection, we note that the trust-
ees' and sergeant-at-arms' duties of distributing
"speak up slips" in preparation for contract negoti-
ations, engaging in contract interpretation, filling in
for bargaining committee members, and voting on
whether to recommend that the membership ratify
or reject contract proposals involve functions that
relate to internal union affairs, rather than steward-
like duties that require the "immediacy of attention
that stewards can offer."6 Further, the trustees' and
sergeant-at-arms' participation in the grievance pro-
cedure through voting on whether grievances
which have reached the fourth step of the griev-
ance procedure will be taken to arbitration does
not involve on-the-job union duties or require the
immediate attention of the officials. Moreover,
Gulton requires for a grant of superseniority a
showing that the employees invoking the supersen-
iority clause "must be on the job to accomplish their
duties."7 It is apparent that, even though the trust-
ees and sergeant-at-arms herein perform several "in
plant" functions, those functions do not necessarily
require that the officials also be "on the job" while
performing them. The evidence fails to show that
the officials' solicitation of suggestions, giving of
advice, discussion of problems in the plant, or
other duties related to their membership on the ex-
ecutive board are dependent on or affected by the
officials' employment status.
Therefore, as none of the identified union offi-
cials meets the standards set forth in Gulton, we
5 Gulton Electro- Voice, supra, 408.
^ Ibid.
' Id at 409.
1443
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
find that the maintenance and enforcement of the
collective-bargaining provision granting supersen-
iority for the purpose of layoff protection and
recall preference was unlawful insofar as it applied
to Respondent Union's three trustees and sergeant-
at-arms. 8 Accordingly, we find that, by the mainte-
nance and enforcement of the superseniority clause
with respect to the above-named officers and offi-
cials, Respondent Union and Respondent Employer
have violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) and Sec-
tion 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act, respectively. We
further find that, by according Richard Phillips,
William Martin, Dennis Uzan, and Mark Howell
superseniority under the unlawful clause to the det-
riment of other unit employees, Respondent Union
and Respondent Employer further violated Section
8(b)(1)(A) and (2) and Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the
Act, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent Employer, Inmont Corpora-
tion, Automotive Division, OEM is an employer
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Respondent Union, Local 942, International
Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agri-
cultural Implement Workers of America (UAW) is
a labor organization within the meaning of Section
2(5) of the Act.
3. By maintaining and enforcing a seniority
clause in their collective-bargaining agreement ac-
cording Respondent Union's trustees and sergeant-
at-arms superseniority, Respondent Union and Re-
spondent Employer have engaged in, and are en-
gaging in, unfair labor practices within the meaning
of Sections 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) and 8(a)(1) and (3) of
the Act, respectively. By discriminating against
unit employees when Respondent Employer laid
off or otherwise displaced employees who would
not have been affected if the collective-bargaining
agreement had not accorded the above-listed offi-
cers superseniority, the Respondents engaged in
further violations of the foregoing sections of the
Act.
4. The foregoing unfair labor practices are unfair
labor practices affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondents have en-
gaged in certain unfair labor practices, we shall
order that they cease and desist therefrom and take
* See generally Auto Workers Local 561 (Scoville), 266 NLRB 952
(1983).
certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the
policies of the Act.
We have found that the superseniority clause
here in dispute is unlawful and we shall therefore
order that Respondent Union cease and desist from
maintaining and enforcing the clause in its bargain-
ing agreement with Respondent Employer. We
shall also order that Respondent Employer cease
and desist from maintaining and enforcing the
clause in its bargaining agreement with Respondent
Union. We also have found that the unlawful su-
perseniority provision was so applied as to lay off
or displace affected unit employees who would not
have been so affected but for the illegal discrimina-
tion depriving them of seniority. Consequently, we
shall order that Respondent Employer offer to re-
instate any employees who would not have been
laid off or displaced from their jobs but for the un-
lawful assignment of superseniority to the sergeant-
at-arms and trustees and that Respondents jointly
and severally make affected unit employees whole
for any loss of earnings they may have sustained as
a result of the discrimination against them. We
shall order that Respondent Employer expunge
from its files any reference to the unlawful layoffs
and displacements, and notify in writing the affect-
ed employees that this has been done and that the
unlawful layoffs and displacements will not be used
as a basis for future personnel actions against them.
We shall further order that Respondent Union
notify in writing both Respondent Employer and
the affected employees that they do not object to
the employees' reinstatement to the positions they
held prior to the enforcement of the superseniority
clause against them. Backpay shall be computed in
the manner established by the Board in F. W.
Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289 (1950), with interest
as provided in Florida Steel Corp., 231 NLRB 651
(1977). See generally Isis Plumbing Co., 138 NLRB
716 (1962). Respondent Employer's backpay obli-
gation shall run from the effective date of the dis-
crimination against affected unit employees to the
time it makes such recall offers, while Respondent
Union's obligation shall run from such effective
date to 5 days after the date of its notification to
Respondent Employer that it has no objection to
the recall of unit employees affected by the unlaw-
ful grant of superseniority to union officers.9
9 Chairman Dotson would not terminate Respondent Union's backpay
liability as of 5 days after they notify Respondent Employer that they
have no objection to the recall of those affected by the unlawful seniority
provisions herein. After such notification, Chairman Dotson would con-
tinue to hold Respondent Union secondarily liable for any additional
backpay amounts. See the dissent in Claremont Resort Hotel, 260 NLRB
1088 (1982), and cases cited therein.
1444
INMONT CORP.
Finally, we shall order that Respondent Employ-
er cease and desist from in any like or related
manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its
employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by
Section 7 of the Act, and that Respondent Union
likewise cease and desist from restraining or coerc-
ing employees they represent exercising those same
rights.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that:
A. Respondent Employer, Inmont Corporation,
Automotive Division, OEM, Detroit, Michigan, its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Maintaining and enforcing any clause in a
collective-bargaining agreement with Respondent
Union, Local 942, United Automobile, Aerospace
and Agricultural Implement Workers of America
(UAW), according the Union's sergeant-at-arms
and trustees superseniority with respect to layoff
and recall.
(b) Discriminating against any employees by
laying them off or otherwise displacing them from
their jobs instead of the Union's above-listed offi-
cers when such employees have greater seniority in
terms of length of employment than has one of the
aforementioned union officials.
(c) In any like or related manner interfering
with, restraining, or coercing employees in the ex-
ercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7
of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which
the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the
Act.
(a) Jointly and severally with Respondent Union
make any unit employees whole for any loss of
earnings they may have suffered as a result of the
discrimination against them, such earnings to be de-
termined in the manner set forth in the section of
this Decision entitled "The Remedy," and offer to
reinstate any employees who would not have been
laid off or otherwise displaced from their jobs but
for the unlawful assignment of superseniority to the
sergeant-at-arms and the trustees.
(b) Preserve and, on request, make available to
the Board or its agents for examination and copy-
ing, all payroll records, social security payment
records, timecards, personnel records and reports,
and all other records necessary to analyze the
amount of backpay due under the terms of this
Order.
(c) Expunge from its files any reference to the
layoff or job displacement of any employees affect-
ed by the superseniority as applied to the Union's
above-listed officers and notify them in writing that
this has been done and that evidence of the unlaw-
ful layoff or displacement will not be used as a
basis for future personnel actions against them.
(d) Post at its Detroit, Michigan facility copies of
the attached notice marked "Appendix A."10
Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Re-
gional Director for Region 7, after being signed by
Respondent Employer's representative, shall be
posted by Respondent Employer immediately upon
receipt and maintained for 60 consecutive days in
conspicuous places including all places where no-
tices to employees are customarily posted. Reason-
able steps shall be taken by Respondent Employer
to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material.
(e) Post at the same places and under the same
conditions as set forth in paragraph A,2, (d), above,
as soon as forwarded by said Regional Director,
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix
B."
(f) Mail signed copies of the attached notice
marked "Appendix A" to the Regional Director
for Region 7 for posting by Respondent Union.
(g) Notify the Regional Director in writing
within 20 days from the date of this Order, what
steps the Respondent Employer has taken to
comply herewith.
B. Respondent Union Local 942, United Auto-
mobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement
Workers of America (UAW), their officers, agents,
and representatives, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Maintaining, enforcing, or otherwise giving
effect to those clauses in their collective-bargaining
agreement with Respondent Employer, Inmont
Corporation, Automotive Division, OEM, accord-
ing the Union's sergeant-at-arms and trustees super-
seniority with respect to layoff and recall.
(b) Causing or attempting to cause Respondent
Employer to discriminate against employees in vio-
lation of Section 8(aX3) of the Act.
(c) In any like or related manner restraining or
coercing the employees of Respondent Employer
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by
Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which
the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the
Act.
(a) Jointly and severally with Respondent Em-
ployer make any unit employees whole for any loss
of earnings they may have suffered by reason of
10 If this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States Court of
Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment
of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the Nation-
al Labor Relations Board."
1445
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the discrimination against them, such lost earnings
to be determined in the manner set forth in the sec-
tion of this decision entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Notify Respondent Employer and the affect-
ed employees in writing that they have no objec-
tion to reinstating the affected unit employees who
but for the unlawful assignment of superseniority
would not have been laid off or displaced from
their jobs.
(c) Post at at their offices and meeting halls used
by or frequented by their members and employees
they represent at Respondent Employer's Detroit,
Michigan facility copies of the attached notice
marked "Appendix B." I Copies of the notice, on
forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 7, after being signed by Respondent
Union's representative, shall be posted by Respond-
ent Union immediately upon receipt and main-
tained by Respondent Union for 60 consecutive
days in conspicuous places including all places
where notices to the above-described members and
employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps
shall be taken by Respondent Union to ensure that
the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by
any other material.
(d) Post at the same places and under the same
conditions as set forth in paragraph B,2(c), above,
as soon as forwarded by said Regional Director,
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix
A."
(e) Mail signed copies of the attached notice
marked "Appendix B" to the Regional Director for
Region 7 for posting by Respondent Employer.
(f) Notify the Regional Director for Region 7, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order,
what steps Respondent Union has taken to comply
herewith.
See fn. 10, above.
APPENDIX A
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT maintain and enforce any clause
in our collective-bargaining agreement with Local
942, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricul-
tural Implement Workers of America (UAW), ac-
cording the Union's sergeant-at-arms and trustees
superseniority with respect to layoff and recall.
WE WILL NOT discriminate against any employ-
ees by laying them off or otherwise displacing
them from their jobs instead of the Union's ser-
geant-at-arms and trustees when such employees do
not in fact have greater seniority in terms of length
of employment.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with, restrain, or coerce you in the exer-
cise of the rights guaranteed you by Section 7 of
the Act.
WE WILL offer to the affected unit employees
immediate and full reinstatement to their former
jobs or, if those jobs no longer exist, to substantial-
ly equivalent positions, without prejudice to those
who were discriminatorily laid off or displaced
from their jobs instead of the Local Union's above-
listed officers and officials.
WE WILL expunge from our files any references
to the layoff or displacement of any employee af-
fected by the superseniority clause as applied to the
Union's above-listed officers, and WE WILL notify
them in writing that this has been done and that
evidence of the unlawful layoff or displacement
will not be used as a basis for future personnel ac-
tions against them.
WE WILL jointly and severally with the Union
make any unit employees whole for any loss of
earnings they may have suffered as a result of the
discrimination against them, with interest.
INMONT CORPORATION, AUTOMOTIVE
DIVISION, OEM
APPENDIX B
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES AND MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT maintain and enforce any clause
in our collective-bargaining agreement or supple-
ments thereto with Inmont Corporation, Automo-
tive Division, OEM, according to financial ser-
geant-at-arms and trustees superseniority with re-
spect to layoff and recall.
WE WILL NOT cause or attempt to cause Inmont
Corporation, Automotive Division, OEM to dis-
criminate against any employees by requiring that
the collective-bargaining agreement be enforced so
as to lay them off or otherwise displace them from
their jobs instead of the above-listed officers when
such officers do not in fact have greater seniority
in terms of length of employment.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner re-
strain or coerce you in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL notify Inmont Corporation, Automo-
tive Division, OEM, that we have no objection to
reinstating the affected unit employees who but for
1446
INMONT CORP.
the unlawful assignment of superseniority would
not have been laid off or displaced from their jobs.
WE WILL jointly and severally with Inmont Cor-
poration, Automotive Division, OEM, make any
unit employees whole for any loss of earnings they
may have suffered as a result of the discrimination
against them, with interest.
LOCAL 942, UNITED AUTOMOBILE,
AEROSPACE AND AGRICULTURAL IM-
PLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA
(UAW)
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
DONALD R. HOLLEY, Administrative Law Judge:
Upon original charges filed by Joseph J. Belanger, an in-
dividual, in Cases 7-CA-20241 and 7-CB-5387, the Re-
gional Director for Region 7 of the National Labor Rela-
tions Board (the Board) issued a consolidated complaint
on March 2, 1982, which alleged inter alia, that Inmont
Corporation, Automotive Division, OEM (the Respond-
ent Employer),' and Local 942, International Union,
United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Imple-
ment Workers of America, UAW (the Respondent
Union), violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) and Section
8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the National Labor Relations Act,
as amended (the Act), respectively, on or about January
25, 1982, by maintaining and giving effect to a supersen-
iority provision for union officers contained in the col-
lective-bargaining agreement between Respondent Em-
ployer and Respondent Union with the result that two of
Respondent Union's trustees and its sergeant-at-arms
were retained in active employment during an economic
layoff while named employees with greater seniority
were laid off from work.2 The Respondent filed timely
answers denying they had engaged in the unfair labor
practices alleged.
The case was heard in Detroit, Michigan, on Novem-
ber 8, 1982.3 On the entire record, including my observa-
tion of the witnesses when they gave testimony, and
after due consideration of the briefs filed by the General
Counsel and Respondent Union, I make the following
1. JURISDICTION
At all times material herein, Respondent Employer has
been engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribution
of automotive paints and related products. Its Milford
I The correct name of Respondent Employer as clarified at the hear-
ing.
a The consolidated complaint was subsequently amended to add the
name of a third trustee.
' At the commencement of the hearing, the General Counsel was per-
mitted to amend the consolidated complaint as follows: "Union" was in-
serted after "Respondent" in par. 8; "Since" was inserted before "On or
about" in par. II; par. I(c) beginning with the word "Maintaining" at the
top of p. 4 was deleted; paragraph 2(b) starting with the word "void" on
p. 4 was deleted; pars. I(b) and 2(b) of the prayer for relief starting with
the words "Maintaining" and "void," respectively, were deleted from the
bottom of p. 4.
Avenue plant in Detroit, Michigan, is the only facility in-
volved in this proceeding. During the calendar year
1981, Respondent Employer purchased and caused to be
transported and delivered at its Milford Avenue plant
from points located outside the State of Michigan paints,
pigments, and other goods and materials valued in excess
of $50,000. Respondent Employer admits, and I find, that
it is an employer engaged in commerce within the mean-
ing of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
II. STATUS OF LABOR ORGANIZATION
It is admitted, and I find, that Local 942, International
Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural
Implement Workers of America, UAW, is a labor organi-
zation within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background
Respondent Union has represented certain hourly paid
production and maintenance employees employed by Re-
spondent Employer since 1937. It represented approxi-
mately 194 employees at the time of the hearing herein.
Since at least 1950, successive collective-bargaining
agreements executed by the parties have contained provi-
sions which accord superseniority to union officers and
stewards. Thus, article VII of the collective-bargaining
agreement, which was entered on November 1, 1979,
and expired on October 31, 1982, provided inter alia:4
Section 6. Shop Committeemen and Officers of
Local No. 942, the total of both not to exceed thir-
teen (13) in number, provided they are employees
of the Company, shall have plant-wide seniority
(but not departmental or classification seniority)
over all employees during their term of office for
the purpose of the Layoff and Recall Procedure. In
addition, each member of the Shop Committee and
the Vice-President of Local No. 942 shall have day
shift preference in any classification to which he
might be assigned under the provisions of Article
VII, Section 8, 9 or 10 during his term of office;
and if he is not on the day shift, he shall displace
the employee with the least seniority in his classifi-
cation in his department on the day shift.
Section 7. Stewards shall have departmental seniori-
ty (but not classification seniority) over employees
under their jurisdiction during their term of office
for the purpose of the Layoff and Recall Procedure.
Stewards shall not be transferred out of their de-
partment, division or shift on a temporary transfer
basis; when the number of employees under the ju-
risdiction of a steward is reduced so that the Stew-
ard is not able to do the available work without
training, this restriction on temporary transfer shall
not apply.
James Randall, Respondent Union's president, indicat-
ed when called as an adverse witness by counsel for the
See G.C. Exh. 2, p. 15.
1447
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
General Counsel that the union officers who enjoyed su-
perseniority pursuant to article VII, section 6, of the col-
lective-bargaining agreement at all times material herein
were: the president, vice president, recording secretary,
financial secretary, sergeant-at-arms, guide, three trust-
ees, and the chief steward on the night shift. He was
unable to recall how many stewards enjoyed supersenior-
ity by virtue of article VVI, section 7, but indicated the
number was between 10 and 20.5
The complaint in this case places in issue the legality
of the grant of superseniority to three trustees and the
sergeant-at-arms for Respondent Union. The record re-
veals that Respondent Employer experienced layoffs
during the period of January 25 through March 14, 1982,
in which the superseniority clause was invoked by the
union trustees and the sergeant-at-arms. Specifically, em-
ployees Joseph Belanger, William Crawford, Ronald
Klopfer, and Edward Litten were laid off during the fol-
lowing periods:
Joseph Belanger Jan. 25 through Feb. 7, 1982
William Crawford Jan. 25 through Mar. 14,
1982
Ronald Klopfer Jan. 25 through Mar. 14,
1982
Edward Litten Jan. 25 through Mar. 14,
1982
It was stipulated that but for the fact that the three
trustees and sergeant-at-arms received preferential treat-
ment due to the contractual clause quoted above, normal
and/or real seniority would have caused trustees Richard
Phillips, William Martin, Dennis Uzan and sergeant-at-
arms Mark Howell to be laid off instead of Belanger,
Crawford, Klopfer, and Litten.
B. The General Counsel's Case
The General Counsel contends that Respondent
Union's trustees and its sergeant-at-arms cannot lawfully
invoke article VII, section 6, of the collective-bargaining
agreement to avoid layoff because they are not directly
involved in the processing of grievances or in the admin-
istration of the contract.
Through Respondent Union President Randall it was
shown that article XI, sections 12 and 13 of the Interna-
tional Union's constitution set forth the duties and func-
tions of Respondent Union's three trustees and the ser-
geant-at-arms. The referenced sections provide:
Trustees
Section 12. The trustees shall have general supervi-
sion over all funds and property of the Local
Union. They shall audit or cause to be audited by a
Certified Public Accountant selected by the Local
Union Executive Board, the records of the Finan-
s The parties stipulated, and I find, that Randall; trustees Richard Phil-
lips, Bill Martin, and Dennis Uzan; and sergeant-at-arms Mark Howell
were, and are, agents of Respondent Union within the meaning of Sec.
2(13) of the Act. In addition, all parties stipulated, and I find, that at all
times material Charles Wheeler, Respondent Employer's industrial rela-
tions manager, has been a supervisor and an agent of Respondent Em-
ployer within the meaning of Sec. 2(11) and (13) of the Act.
cial Officers of the Local Union semiannually as
provided herein, using duplicate forms provided by
the International Union, a copy of which shall be
forwarded to the International Secretary-Treasurer
immediately thereafter. It shall also be their duty to
see that the Financial Officers of the Local Union
are bonded in conformity with the laws of the
International Union. The Trustees shall see that all
funds shall be deposited in a bank subject to an
order signed by the President and Treasurer and/or
Financial Secretary. In Local Unions where safety
deposit boxes are used, the Trustees shall see that
the signatures of the President, Treasurer and one
(1) of the Trustees are required before admittance
to the safety deposit box is permitted. In the event
the books are not received for audit within fifteen
(15) days after the end of each six-month period, the
Chairperson of the Trustees shall make a report to
the next meeting of the Local Union for action.
Sergeant-at-Arms
Section 13. It shall be the duty of the Sergeant-at-
Arms to introduce all new members and visitors
and assist the President in preserving order when
called upon to do so. S/He shall also take charge of
all property of the Local Union not otherwise pro-
vided for, and perform such other duties as may be
assigned to her/him from time to time.
Randall indicated during his testimony that, in addition
to performing the above-described duties and functions,
Respondent Union's trustees and sergeant-at-arms serve
on the Local Union's executive board. The International
Union's constitution and Respondent Union's bylaws in-
dicate that executive boards of the Local Unions are em-
powered to represent the Local between membership
meetings, although they may not transact business which
may affect the vital interests of the membership until the
approval of the membership is secured. In general, the
Local Union executive boards are charged with the re-
sponsibility to carry out the provisions of the Interna-
tional constitution, and the official policies of both the
International and the Local(s). 6 With specific regard to
Respondent Union's executive board,7 Randall testified it
meets I hour before the regularly scheduled membership
meeting each month to discuss the agenda for the mem-
bership meeting, and it meets twice a month in a so-
called committee room located on Respondent Employ-
er's property to vote on other than day-to-day financial
matters. While Randall testified the executive board does
not meet directly with members of Respondent Employ-
er to discuss grievances and contract matters, he indicat-
ed that members of the Board distribute and collect
"speak up" slips from members to ascertain their views
on possible contract demands; are consulted by bargain-
ing unit personnel concerning contractual matters; decide
6 See G.C. Exhs. 4 (p. 79) and 5 (pp. 9-11).
Respondent Union's executive board is composed of the president,
vice president, three bargaining committeemen, financial secretary, re-
cording secretary, three trustees, sergeant-at-arms, and the midnight chief
steward.
1448
INMONT CORP.
when grievances reach the fourth step whether they will
be taken to arbitration; keep members informed concern-
ing arbitration proceedings; act as picket captains in the
event of a strike; are obligated to get members back to
work in event of a wildcat strike; and vote whether to
expel board members or stewards who miss two meet-
ings in a row without an adequate excuse. In addition,
Randall indicated that as all safety and health and dis-
charge grievances are filed at the fourth step with the
bargaining committee, the board holds meetings to
decide whether to file a grievance immediately or to try
to resolve the problem with the safety director or appro-
priate management representative.
In support of the claim that Respondent Union's trust-
ees, its sergeant-at-arms, and its executive board members
have no direct roles in the processing of grievances or in
contract matters, the General Counsel caused Respond-
ent Employer's manager of industrial relations, Charles
Wheeler, to testify that he had never dealt with the trust-
ees, the sergeant-at-arms, or the executive board con-
cerning grievances or contract issues. When called as a
witness by the General Counsel, trustee William Martin
admitted he has never met directly with Respondent Em-
ployer on the processing of a grievance to bargain for
contractual provisions or to discuss a contractual prob-
lem.
The General Counsel's last witness, Charging Party
Belanger, testified that he observed Respondent Union's
executive board meetings, which preceded regular mem-
bership meetings, on four to five occasions during the
year preceding the hearing and he noted that the trustees
and the sergeant-at-arms did not participate in the meet-
ing.
C. Respondent Union's Evidence
While Respondent Union concedes its trustees and the
sergeant-at-arms have little, if any, direct contact with
Respondent Employer representatives concerning griev-
ance or contract matters, it contends that such officers,
individually, and as members of the executive board, are
extensively involved in the grievance process and in ad-
ministration of the collective-bargaining agreement and
the operation of the Local.
Through its recording secretary, Wyndham Howell
Sr., Respondent Union elicited testimony which reveals
that stewards and bargaining committee members are
elected each year, while elections for officers, including
the trustees and the sergeant-at-arms, are held once
every 3 years.
While Howell was on the witness stand, Respondent
Union placed several documents in evidence to demon-
strate the manner in which its officers, stewards, and
committeepersons are elected. Apparently, the listings of
candidates nominated are posted throughout the plant,
prior to the final election, and the members of the bar-
gaining unit are able, if they desire to do so, to compare
the names of those nominated with seniority lists posted
in the plant and thereby ascertain whether the individual
nominees would gain, if elected, a seniority preference or
benefit as a result of occupying a position which con-
fered superseniority in accordance with article VII, sec-
tions 6 and 7, of the collective-bargaining agreement.
To further explain the duties of the trustees and the
sergeant-at-arms, Respondent Union introduced Re-
spondent's Exhibit I, through witness Randall, and Re-
spondent's Exhibit 2, through Howell. As explained by
Randall, the former exhibit consists of some eight pages
of notes taken by Randall to summarize topics discussed
at executive board and/or regular membership meetings
held in a rented hall off Respondent Employer's premises
during the period extending from November 1, 1981, to
October 3, 1982. 8 With specific regard to grievance or
contract related matters, Respondent's Exhibit I reveals,
inter alia, that the status of various arbitration proceed-
ings was discussed at most executive board and member-
ship meetings; that the status of unfair labor practice
charges involving superseniority was discussed at several
executive board and/or membership meetings; that un-
specified discussion concerning the discharge of an em-
ployee (Danny Robinson) occurred during the March 7,
1982, executive board and membership meetings; that the
fourth step grievances concerning warehouse jobs and
smoke breaks were discussed at several meetings; that
the fourth step grievances of three employees (Hernan-
dez, Biando, and Hluschenko) were mentioned at the
June 6 meetings; that members were told to give their
suggestions for upcoming negotiations to any committee
members at the June 6, 1982, membership meeting; and
that the progress of negotiations and discussion of a
strike voted occurred at the October 3, 1982, meeting.9
Respondent's Exhibit 2 is a compilation consisting of no-
tices of executive board meetings for February 8, 9, and
16, 1982, held in a committee room located on Respond-
ent Employer's premises together with minutes of such
meetings prepared by recording secretary Howell. This
exhibit indicates, inter alia, that the trustees and the ser-
geant-at-arms attended the meetings which were held in
the committee room at the plant; the removal of union
steward Barbara Scruggs was discussed at the February
8 and 9 meetings; and that possible reopening of the con-
tract was discussed and voted upon at the February 16
meetings.
During his appearance as a witness, trustee Richard
Phillips indicated he was elected as a trustee in 1979. In
describing his duties and functions as a trustee, he indi-
cated he spends approximately 6 hours every 6 months
auditing the financial transactions of the Local during
the preceding 6-month period, following the procedures
outlined in a manual provided to Respondent Union by
the International Union.
With regard to duties and functions which might
loosely be classified as steward-like functions, Phillips in-
dicated that because of his close contact with the mem-
bers of the bargaining committee, he and other members
of the executive board are familiar with the terms of the
collective-bargaining agreement and, as the stewards and
unit employees are cognizant of that fact, they frequently
8 The record reveals that Respondent Union normally conducts no
regular membership meetings during the months of July, August, and
September. The executive board continues to meet at the plant during
such months.
9 The noted items were simply mentioned; the minutes do not reveal
the details of discussion.
1449
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ask his opinion on how to handle grievances or his inter-
pretation of contract clauses. He testified he is asked to
give his opinions on such matters more frequently when
the bargaining committee is actively engaged in negotia-
tions. Like other Respondent Union witnesses, Phillips
verified the fact that the executive board votes to deter-
mine whether grievances which have reached the fourth
step will be taken to arbitration,1 0 and he indicated the
executive board votes on whether contract proposals
will be submitted to the membership for ratification. Fi-
nally, Phillips testified he attends meetings which are
held in the committee room on Respondent Employer's
premises when safety and health matters arise and the ex-
ecutive board must decide whether a grievance should
be filed or the matter should be taken up with manage-
ment without the filing of a grievance. "
Mark Howell indicated his duties as sergeant-at-arms
are set forth in the Local Union's bylaws. In addition, he
testified he keeps a list of the property of the Local, and
checks from time to time to ascertain its condition and
whether they still have the listed items.
Howell indicated he is a member of the executive
board and is entitled to one vote like other members of
the Board. He testified he attends both the meetings of
the executive board which are held I hour before each
regular monthly membership meeting; and he attends the
semimonthly and special meetings of the Board which
are held in the committee room at the plant.
Like trustee Phillips, Howell testified employees come
up to him in the plant and ask questions concerning con-
tract language and questions about how their grievances
are progressing or being handled.
Howell indicated he has substituted for members of
the election committee, and that he is a member of the
supplemental unemployment committee (SUB),12 the re-
action committee, and the retiree committee.
The International Union's chief auditor and director of
the auditing department, Rayburn Frye, testified as to
the importance of the duties of the trustees. In brief, it
was Frye's testimony that the trustees were relied on by
the Unions as an important part of the checks and bal-
ances necessary to ensure the maintenance of the Union's
reputation for honesty and integrity.
D. Contention of the Parties
The General Counsel's contention in this case is that
Respondent Union and Respondent Employer violated
'o The record reveals the executive board considers from 5 to 24
fourth-step grievances per month.
II Phillips testified he has a number of duties which do not meet the
definition of steward-like duties or functions. Thus, he indicated: The
trustees, as officers of the Local, have an obligation to attempt to cause
employees to return to work in event of a wildcat strike; that the trustees
act as picket captains if a lawful strike occurs; that he substituted for a
member of the election committee when an internal election was held by
the Local; and he serves as director of education and in this capacity
gives copies of the contract to new employees and explains to them the
workings of the Union, including why they pay dues.
a Depending on the amount of money available, Respondent Employ-
er pays supplemental unemployment benefits to its employees who are in
layoff status. While application for such moneys are made in Respondent
Employer's personnel office, Howell indicated employees ask union offi-
cers questions about the fund, such as whether money is available or
when it will be available.
Section 8(bXl)(A) and (2) and Section 8(aX3) and (1) of
the Act, respectively, by applying and enforcing article
VII, section 6, of their collective-bargaining agreement
on or about January 25, 1982, as such application of a
preferred seniority clause enabled three union trustees
and a union sergeant-at-arms to retain their jobs while
other employees with greater natural seniority were not
so retained. 13 The General Counsel argues that the trust-
ees and the sergeant-at-arms are not lawfully entitled to
superseniority because the duties officially assigned or
regularly performed by the trustees and the sergeant-at-
arms are not steward-type functions, are not performed
at the workplace during hours of employment, and do
not relate to the general furthering of the relationship be-
tween the Respondents.
Respondent Union and Respondent Employer contend
initially that as article VII, section 6, has appeared in
their contracts since at least 1950, and the clause has
been enforced at times in the past, Section 10(b) of the
Act should preclude the Board from finding they violat-
ed the Act in this case. They further argue that the trust-
ees and the sergeant-at-arms perform duties necessary to
further the negotiation and administration of the collec-
tive-bargaining agreement at the plant level and, for that
reason, they are lawfully entitled to preferred seniority.
Respondent Union further argues that the Board's deci-
sion in Dairylea Cooperative, 219 NLRB 656 (1975), enfd.
sub nom. Teamsters Local 338 v. NLRB, 531 F.2d 1162
(2d Cir. 1976) (hereinafter Dairylea), is based on an infer-
ence that superseniority benefits in that case (supersenior-
ity for all purposes) tended to encourage union activity
and was intended to do so, whereas the facts of the in-
stant case will not support such an inference because su-
perseniority is limited to layoff and recall and the union
officers who are entitled to invoke superseniority are
duly elected by the employees. Finally, the Union argues
that the superseniority issues should be considered and
their legality determined using the concept of the duty of
fair representation. Thus, the Union contends that the
Board has applied the principle of duty fair representa-
tion to determine violations in other cases involving se-
niority such as Red Ball Motor Freight, 157 NLRB 1237
(1966), enfd. 379 F.2d 137 (D.C. Cir. 1967), which in-
volved the dovetailing of seniority resulting from merg-
ers. In application of the principle of the duty to fairly
represent, the union is entitled, the argument goes, to a
"wide range of reasonableness," in meeting the needs of
those it represents so long as it acts in good faith and
with honesty of purpose. Ford Motor Co. v. Huffman, 345
U.S. 330 (1953). The Union asserts that measured under
the duty to fairly represent standard, the superseniority
clause involved herein cannot be found unlawful. This
assertion would appear to be based in part upon the
premise that the reasonableness of the seniority provision
in issue had been shown by the ratification by employees
"s While the General Counsel alleged that the Respondents violated
the described sections of the Act by "maintaining" the preferred seniority
clause in question, counsels for the General Counsel indicated at the
outset of the hearing that they seek no remedial order which would pro-
hibit maintenance or cause voiding of the clause.
1450
INMONT CORP.
of the provision in the collective-bargaining agreement
for over 30 years, and through the election of the union
officers to whom the provision applies every 3 years.
E. Analysis and Conclusions
With respect to the 10(b) argument, support for the
Respondent's position can be found in NLRB v. Auto
Warehousers, Inc., 571 F.2d 860, 963 (5th Cir. 1978),
which is cited in the Union's brief along with Machinists
Local 1424 v. NLRB, 362 U.S. 411 (1960). In Auto Ware-
housers, the court refused to enforce on 10(b) grounds a
Board finding at 227 NLRB 628 that an employer and a
union violated the Act by maintaining and enforcing a
superseniority provision in their collective-bargaining
agreement which granted superseniority to union stew-
ards for "all purposes," including job bidding. While the
execution of the collective-bargaining agreement had oc-
curred outside the 10(b) period, the steward in that case
had exercised his superseniority on a job bid within the
6-month period of limitations making the charge timely
under Section 10(b). The court, however, held that the
superseniority clause was not per se unlawful, and only
presumptively unlawful, so that an inquiry into its legali-
ty depended on justification for the clause at the time of
its execution. The court relied largely on Machinists
Local 1424, supra, where the Supreme Court had reject-
ed as time barred a challenge to a collective-bargaining
agreement containing a union-security provision executed
with a miniority union outside the 10(b) period.
The Board has not followed the reasoning of the court
in Auto Warehousers. See, e.g., Actors' Equity Assn., 247
NLRB 1193 (1980), enfd. 644 F.2d 939 (2d Cir. 1981).
The Board has consistently held that the maintenance of
a presumptively invalid superseniority clause is unlawful,
and such maintenance and enforcement within the 6-
month period prior to the filing of the charge is suffi-
cient to defeat a defense based on 10(b). See Connecticut
Limousine Service, 235 NLRB 1350 (1978), enfd. in part
sub nom. NLRB v. Teamsters Local 443, 600 F.2d 411 (2d
Cir. 1979); Preston Trucking Co., 236 NLRB 464 (1978);
Perfection Automotive Products, 232 NLRB 690 (1977);
A.P.A. Transport Corp., supra at 1409, "Mere longevity of
contractual language does not establish its legality." And
as the Second Circuit commented in Actors' Equity, supra
at 943, with regard to the restrictive interpretation of
Section 10(b) sought by the respondent in that case:
[Such a] reading of § 10(b) would mean that no
union member could challenge the validity of an ex-
isting [disparate dues schedule utilized in connection
with a union-security clause] where the practice had
existed for more than 6 months prior to the filing of
the charges. We decline to adopt such a preclusive
rule.
Here, the trustees and the sergeant-at-arms utilized ar-
ticle VII, section 6, of the then subsisting collective-bar-
gaining agreement on January 25, 1982, to retain their
job causing Respondent Employer to lay off on that date
employees Belanger, Crawford, Klopfer, and Litten who
had more natural seniority than trustees Richard Phillips,
Dennis Uzan, and Bill Martin and sergeant-at-arms Mark
Howell. Anticipating such action, employee Belanger
filed the original charge in this case on January 22, 1982.
I find the charge was timely filed and the 10(b) conten-
tion is without merit.
Turning to the merits of the case, the principles which
control the resolution of the major issue in this case have
their originals in Dairylea Cooperative, supra. In Dairylea,
the Board concluded that steward superseniority provi-
sions limited to layoff and recall situations are presump-
tively valid but superseniority provisions as to other job
benefits are presumptively invalid, stating that steward
superseniority
. . .furthers the effective administration of bargain-
ing agreements on the plant level by encouraging
the continued presence of the steward on the job. It
thereby not only serves a legitimate statutory pur-
pose but also redounds in its effect to the benefits of
all unit employees. Thus, superseniority for layoff
and recall has a proper aim and such discrimination
as it may create is simply an incidental side effect of
a more general benefit accorded all employees. [219
NLRB at 658.]
Subsequently, in Limpco Mfg. Co.,1 4 the Board consid-
ered whether superseniority for purposes of layoff could
be extended to a recording secretary who performed in-
ternal union correspondence tasks and also participated
informally in processing grievances, advising stewards
and foremen on contract interpretation, and handled
problems in general. The Board majority concluded that
facilitating the effective administration of a collective-
bargaining agreement extended beyond grievance proc-
essing to ensure "at the very least a functioning local to
assert the presence of the union on the job" (230 NLRB
408). It further concluded that upon a showing that the
official responsibilities of the union officer "bear a direct
relationship to the effective and efficient representation
of unit employees" (230 NLRB at 408), then the officer
is entitled to the benefits of the same presumption afford-
ed to union stewards.
Recently, in Gulton Electro-Voice, Inc., 266 NLRB 406
(1983), the Board considered whether it would continue
to find lawful superseniority contract clauses which
grant superseniority for layoff and recall to union offi-
cers who do not perform steward or steward-like func-
tions, i.e., grievance processing or other on-the-job con-
tract administration responsibilities. The Board resolved
the issue stating (266 NLRB at 409):
We will find unlawful those grants of superseniority
extending beyond those employees responsible for
grievance processing and on-the-job contract ad-
ministration. We will find lawful only those super-
seniority provisions limited to employees who, as
agents of the union, must be on the job to accom-
plish their duties directly related to administering
the collective-bargaining agreement.
14 Electrical Workers Local 623 (Limpco Mfg.), 230 NLRB 406 (1977),
enfd. sub nom. D'Amico v. NLRB, 582 F.2d 820 (3d Cir. 1978).
1451
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Significantly, in Gulton Electro- Voice, the Board noted (at
fn. 9, 408):
In rejecting the Limpco standard, we do not nec-
essarily suggest that the superseniority accorded the
Limpco recording secretary would be unlawful
under the standard set forth herein, as she did per-
form some grievance functions. Rather, we do not
speculate as to how we would decide those facts
under the test enunciated in this case.
The foregoing indicates I must decide whether the
three trustees and the sergeant-at-arms involved in the
case sub judice are responsible for grievance processing
and on-the-job contract administration and whether they
must be on the job to accomplish duties directly related
to administering the collective-bargaining agreement.
At the outset, it is clear, and I find, that performance
of the duties and functions enunciated for the trustees
and the sergeant-at-arms in the International Union's
constitution and Respondent Union's bylaws would not
justify a lawful grant of superseniority to the individuals
occupying those offices.' 5 Thus, justification for accord-
ing them preferred plantwide seniority for layoff and
recall purposes must be found, if at all, because of their
informal participation in the processing of grievances and
administration of the contract, and through their partici-
pation, on plant property, in executive board activities.
In sum, the instant record reveals that Respondent
Union's trustees and its sergeant-at-arms, individually, or
as members of the executive board, engage in the follow-
ing "in plant" activities: distribute and collect "speak up"
slips in the solicitation of membership suggestions for
t' McQuay Norris, Inc., 258 NLRB 1397 (1981).
contract proposals; render informal opinions on matters
involving contract interpretation; meet twice each month
and, on other occasions when the need arises, in a com-
mittee office located in the plant, to discuss and resolve
problems arising within the plant, including employee
discharges, safety matters, and situations necessitating the
removal of stewards; fill in for bargaining committee
members when they are out of the plant conducting ne-
gotiations, and decide by executive board vote whether
to recommend that the membership ratify or reject final
contract proposals. During the months of July, August,
and September, the executive board conducts all the
business at meetings held in the plant.
In my view, it is clear, and I find, that Respondent
Union's trustees and its sergeant-at-arms engaged in sig-
nificant in-plant activities which are directly related to
the processing of grievances and to the administration of
the collective-bargaining agreement. As the vast majority
of its meetings are held in the plant, it is clear its mem-
bers must be on the job to participate. Consequently, I
find that Respondent Union and Respondent Employer
did not violate the Act by according the trustees and the
sergeant-at-arms superseniority on or about January 25,
1982, as alleged.' 6
[Recommended Order for dismissal omitted from pub-
lication.]
16 Having found in Respondent Union's favor, I refrain from treating
at length its contention that the facts in this case reveal that art. VII, sec.
6, of the contract does not, and was not intended to, encourage union
activity and its contention that the Board should utilize the principle of
fair representation to determine the instant superseniority issue. I note,
however, that the Board considered and rejected the first issue in Gulton
Electro-Voice. Inc., supra, and I observe that I am obligated to utilize the
standard set forth by the Board in Gulton Elecro- Voice to resolve the
issues in this case.
1452