International Harvester Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 30, 1961

129 N.L.R.B. 1457 (N.L.R.B. 1961)

INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER COMPANY 1457
International Harvester Company and Memphis Independent
Electrical Trade League , Petitioner
International Harvester Company and Memphis Independent
Skilled Trades League, Petitioner. Cases Nos. 26-RC-1494
and 26-RC-1495. January 30, 1961
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon petitions duly filed, a consolidated hearing was held before
Kay P. Fisher, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at
the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.'
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Leedom and Members
Rodgers and Jenkins].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 2
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the represen-
tation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section
9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, for the following
reasons : 3
The Petitioner in Case No. 26-RC-1494 seeks to sever from an
existing production and maintenance unit represented by the Inter-
venor an alleged craft unit of electricians and instrument repair-
men at the Employer's Memphis, Tennessee, manufacturing plant.
The Petitioner in Case No. 26-RC-1495 seeks to sever from the same
production and maintenance unit an alleged craft unit of tool- and
die-makers and related employees in the toolroom, machine repair,
and product engineering departments at the same plant. The Em-
ployer and the Intervenor contend the requested employees are not
true craftsmen, and that the alleged craft units sought are not appro-
priate because they are not coextensive with an existing multiplant
bargaining unit covered by a national agreement between the Em-
ployer and the Intervenor.
1 In view of our dismissal of the petitions herein, we find it unnecessary to pass upon
the contentions of the Employer and International Union, Automobile, Aircraft, and
Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW) AFL-CIO, and Local 988, the
Intervenors , regarding the qualifications of the Petitioners to represent employees or to
seek severance from the established unit, or upon the correctness of the hearing officer's
rulings concerning this issue. See General Motors Corporation, Cadollac Motor Car Divi-
sion, 120 NLRB 1215, 1216-1217.
9 The request by the Employer and the Intervenor for oral argument is hereby denied
because, in our opinion , the record and the briefs adequately present the issues and the
positions of the parties.
a The Employer and the Intervenor urge as a bar their contract which is effective from
January 16, 1959, until October 1, 1961. As the contract is to be effective for a term
exceeding 2 years, it is to be treated as a contract for a fixed term of 2 years under con-
trolling Board precedent. Pacific Coast Association of Pulp and Paper Manufacturers,
121 NLRB 990, 993. As the instant petitions were filed on August 22, 1960, within the
90-day period preceding the insulated period of the contract, we find that the agreement
is no bar.
129 NLRB No. 184.
586439--61-vol. 129-93
1458 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Between 1940 and 1954 the Intervenor was certified as the bargain-
ing representative at a number of plants of the Employer. The
Employer and the Intervenor have executed two successive national
agreements, the first in 1955 and the second, asserted as a bar herein,
in 1959. These national, or master, contracts covered in detail such
matters as employerwide seniority, hours of work, overtime, wages,
vacations, strike and lockout limitations, fringe benefits, and various
other provisions. The contracts also provided that grievances aris-
ing thereunder are to be finally settled by arbitration on a national
basis. All bargaining in connection with the negotiation of the
aforementioned contracts occurred in Chicago where the main office
of the Employer is located. Both parties were represented at such
negotiations by central negotiating teams. The team representing
the Intervenor was assisted by an International staff member of the
Intervenor, who served as the spokesman of the employees at all the
plants involved. The record further shows that the Harvester Coun-
cil was organized by the Intervenor for the purpose of handling
problems arising from the various locals at the individual plants
concerned. This Council also decides questions relating to the Inter-
venor's bargaining demands and submits proposals in behalf of the
Intervenor on the basis of its national bargaining objectives. Agree-
ments reached pursuant to such negotiations have been ratified by a
majority of the members in a majority of the plant locals concerned
before they become effective. After such master agreements become
effective, they cannot be voided by any local, nor superseded by any
separate agreement with the Employer, although the individual locals
are permitted to execute supplemental agreements covering matters
solely of local concern.
We believe that it is clear from the foregoing that the parties in-
tended to, and in fact did, carry on their collective bargaining on the
basis of a single multiplant unit. We therefore find, in consequence
of the bargaining history of 5 years' duration and the exclusive recog-
nition accorded the Intervenor by the Employer on a multiplant unit
basis, that there has come into existence and now exists a single
companywide unit embracing all those plants of the Employer in
which the Intervenor has been recognized or certified as the exclu-
sive representative, and which are covered by the existing master
agreement. As each of the Petitioners in these cases seeks an election
in a unit limited to a single plant embraced by the master agree-
ment, the two units sought are not coextensive with the existing
bargaining unit and therefore are inappropriate for the purposes of
collective bargaining.4 We shall dismiss both petitions.
[The Board dismissed the petitions.]
* General Motors Corporation , Cadillac Motor Car Division, 120 NLRB 1215 , 1221; see
also St Regis Paper Company , 101 NLRB 656 . In view of our conclusion we need not
decide whether the employees sought are craftsmen who might otherwise constitute units
appropriate for severance purposes