Michigan Gear & Engineering Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 5, 1955

114 N.L.R.B. 208 (N.L.R.B. 1955)

208 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Board concerning appropriate units, even where-as in the 1953 decision (106
NLRB 109)-the Board did not finally resolve the issue. (It is to be noted that in
the letter of September 17, 1953, opposing the Steelworkers' appeal of the Regional
Director's dismissal of the Steelworkers' second petition, Respondents acknowledged
that the Board's decision in 106 NLRB 109 had not resolved the question of a sepa-
rate Reedsville unit or voting group raised here.) But it is still another situation
where the party seeking to invoke such equitable estoppel has recognized I of 2 com-
peting unions almost immediately after such party had advised the Board that the
unit is too amorphous in which to conduct a Board election and the party also had
requested that an election should not be held until the unit situation has become
stabilized. Parties proceed at their "peril" in resolving these issues instead of await-
ing the orderly processes of the Act, and one of these "perils" in the circumstances,
of this case, I find, is a change in Board policy when the conduct in question comes
up for decision in an,unfair labor practice proceeding. See N. L. R. B. v. Local 404,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, etc., 205 F. 2d 99, 103 (C. A. 1); N. L. R. B.
v. National Container Corp., 211 F. 2d 525, 534-535 (C. A. 2).
We reach, now, a consideration of the Zia case. The Board has held, even after
overruling the Wateraus principle in the Zia case, that "the mere acquisition of a new
plant does not, of itself, warrant the holding of a separate election among its em-
ployees for the purpose of establishing a bargaining representative" (Hess, Goldsmith
& Company, Inc., 110 NLRB 1384, as to the Penn and Taylor plants, and Bulova
Research and Development Laboratpries, Inc., 110 NLRB 1036-both decisions-
citing Saco-Lowell Shops, 107 NLRB 590). Apparently, therefore, the Zia prin-
ciple, if it applies to new plants at all, is not an absolute one and its application de-
pends on the facts presented in each case, including such considerations as to whether
the new plant is merely an "accretion" to an existing unit. Cf. American Cast
Products, Inc., 110 NLRB 705; Bornstein Sea Foods, Inc., 111 NLRB 198.
There are significant points of similarity between the 5-plant unit situation in the-
present case and various aspects of the Hess-Goldsmith, Bulova Research, and Saco-
Lowell cases supra: for example, common ownership and otherwise integrated own-
ership, management, and operations of all 5 plants; identical job skills, wages, va-
cation benefits, and other conditions of employment in the 5 plants; 10 geographical
proximity of the Morgantown and Reedsville plants; and transfer of comparatively
substantial numbers of employees and amounts of equipment from the Morgantown
plants to Reedsville. Considering all these factors, together with the other facts
found by the Board in 106 NLRB 109, I conclude on the basis of the aforecited cases
that the three Reedsville plants do not constitute a separate appropriate unit and that
the Reedsville employees are not otherwise entitled to a self-determination election
as a separate voting group within the Zia doctrine as a condition to their inclusion
in an overall bargaining unit. The Steelworkers' petition and continuing claims for
recognition of only the Reedsville employees did not and do not therefore present
a true question concerning representation within the William Penn case, supra. I
conclude, therefore, that no Mid-West Piping violation has been established, and I
shall accordingly recommend that the complaint be dismissed."
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
w in addition to the Board's findings in 106 NLRB 109, see Respondents ' Exhibit No. 12,
p. 7, in the instant case.
111 grant the General Counsels motion to strike , as regards District 50's representation
showing. In view of my disposition of the case , it is unnecessary to discuss other matters
presented in defense.
Michigan Gear & Engineering Company and Local 157, Interna-
tional Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural
Implement Workers of America, CIO, Petitioner. Case No.
7-RC---2853. October 5,1955
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Russell W. Bradley, hearing
114 NLRB No. 51.
MICHIGAN GEAR & ENGINEERING COMPANY 209
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 certain
employees of the Employer.'
3. The Employer and Intervenor contend that their contract of
June 1, 1953, as automatically renewed, is a bar to the petition filed
herein on July 7,1955. -
Article 14 of the contract reads as follows :
TERMINATION.-This agreement shall continue in full force
and effect from the date hereof to and including the First day of
June, 1954 and thereafter shall be a continuing agreement from
year to year. However this agreement may be amended or termi-
nated by either party giving written notice to the other party
between May 1st and June 1st of the particular agreement year-
within which it is given of its desire to so amend or terminate
this agreement. If notice of termination is given, this agreement
will then terminate as of the end of the agreement year in
which such notice is given. If notice of amendment is given, the
notice must be accompanied by written proposed amendment or
amendments and no other amendments shall receive consideration.
However, if no agreement is reached upon the proposed amend-
ment or amendments by the end of the agreement year, then this
agreement shall continue in force and effect as is.
On May 13, 1955, the Intervenor served notice on the Employer that
it sought amendment of the agreement to be effective June 1, 1955, and
requested that negotiations thereon be held not later than May 24 a
The proposed amendments were as follows :
1. In the event that any employee should retire, the Company
continues payment of all Hospitalization, Medical, Sick & Acci-
dent, and Life Insurance premiums through such retirement.
2. Improvement of all Insurance plans by increasing benefits in
Hospitalization, Medical, Sick & Accident and Life Insurance
policies. (To keep in line with other companies.)
3. Good Friday to be added to the list of paid holidays.
4. A blanket wage increase of thirty cents (30¢) per hour for
all employees covered by the bargaining agreement.
A
'Local No. 1, The Society of Tool and Die Craftsmen , was permitted to intervene on
the basis of its contractual interests.
0 Article 8, section 5 of the contract provided for wage reopenings only during the term
of the agreement on 30 days' notice . Pursuant to this provision , the Intervenor, on
March 18, 1955, requested a general wage increase for all hourly rated employees. This
request was subsequently rejected by the Employer.
210 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS-BOARD
The provisions of paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 to be in lieu of any,
guaranteed annual wage plan.
At the May 24 meeting, the Employer declined to grant any of the
Intervenor's requests, but agreed to consider such requests at a later
meeting if business conditions warranted it. Thereafter, on the Inter-
venor's demand, the parties met again on June 14 and negotiated fur-
ther through the medium of a representative of the Federal Mediation'
Service. At the June 14 meeting, the Employer offered a 5-cent-an-
hour increase and agreed to make any future benefits granted retro-'
active to June 1, 1955. The Intervenor rejected the Employer's offer,
whereupon the Employer asked for a continuation of the meetings to
July 15. The July 15 meeting was never held because of the filing of
the instant petition.
In substance, the Employer and Intervenor contend that in the ab-
sence of a notice to terminate, the 1953 contract was automatically
renewed upon the failure of the parties to reach agreement on the
proposed amendments before June 1, 1955, the anniversary, and re-
newal, date of the agreement. The Petitioner takes the position that
the contract was automatically terminated by the broad notice of modi-
fication, and that the extension of the agreement after June 1, 1955,
was only an extension of indefinite duration pending the negotiation
of a new agreement. The Petitioner argues, therefore, that the ex-
tended contract is not a bar to the petition. Contrary to the Petition-
er's contention, however, we hold to the view that the language of the
contract's termination clause expressly provides for its automatic re-
newal for a full term of 1 year in the event of the failure of the parties
to reach agreement on the proposed amendments before the renewal
date of the agreement. As the contract is unambiguous in that re-
spect, there is no room for any presumption that the Intervenor, in
fact, intended to terminate the contract when it gave notice of a desire
to modify .3 In such circumstances, we find that when the petition
herein was filed, the contact had already renewed itself for a full year.
That the parties continued their contract negotiations after the auto-
matic renewal of their agreement on June 1, 1955, does not persuade us
to reach a contrary conclusion. As the Board stated in the
Mallinckrodt case, once a contract renews itself, those limitations set
forth in Section 8 (d) of the Act on the duty to bargain during the
term of an agreement become applicable. Negotiations for changes
after automatic renewal must be considered as entirely voluntary
rather than mandatory, and not so unstabilizing as to preclude the ap-
plication of the Board's customary contract bar rules. As the petition
was untimely filed with respect to the automatic renewal date of the
' Malltnckrodt Chemical Works, 114 NLRB 187.
SUTHERLAND PAPER COMPANY 211
1953 contract, we find that such contract , as automatically renewed,
constitutes a bar tb any, further proceedings herein. Accordingly, .we
shall dismiss the petition.
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
Sutherland Paper Company and United Paper Workers of Amer-
ica, CIO , Petitioner . Case No. 7-RC-2677. October 5, 1955
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF
REPRESENTATIVES
On June 2, 1955, pursuant to the Board's Decision and Direction of
Election,' elections by secret ballot were conducted under the direc-
tion and supervision of the Regional Director for the Seventh Region,
among the employees in the voting groups heretofore found appro-
priate. Upon the conclusion of the balloting, a separate tally of bal-
lots for each voting group and for the pooled group of employees was
furnished the parties in accordance with the Rules and Regulations
of the Board. The tally of voting group I (the craft group), shows
that of approximately 372 eligible voters, 364 cast ballots, of which 144
were for International Printing Pressmen & Assistants' Union of
North America, AFL, herein called Pressmen; 120 were for the Inde-
pendent Union of Sutherland Paper Company Employees, Inc., herein
called Independent ; 75 were for the United Paper Workers of Amer-
ica, herein called Paper Workers, CIO; 9 were for the International
Brotherhood of Paper Makers, AFL, herein called Paper Makers,
AFL; 1 was against representation by participating labor organiza-
tions ; and 15 ballots were challenged. The tally in voting group II,
shows that of approximately 2;303 eligible voters, 2,088 cast ballots, of
which 1,215 were for the Independent; 713 were for the Paper Work-
ers, CIO; 62 were for the Paper Makers, AFL; 51 were for the Print-
ing Specialties & Paper Products Union, Local 507, affiliated with In-
ternational Printing Pressmen & Assistants' Union of North America,
AFL, herein called Local 507; 11 were against representation by par-
ticipating labor organizations ; and 36 ballots were challenged. As the
Pressmen, the only union seeking to represent the employees of voting
group I separately, did not receive a majority of the ballots cast in that
voting group, the Regional Director pooled the votes of those employ-
ees with the votes of the employees in voting group II. The tally in
the pooled group shows that of approximately 2,675 eligible voters,
2,452 cast ballots, of which 1,335 were for the Independent; 788 \i cre
for the Paper Workers, CIO; 71 were for the Paper Makers, AFL; 51
1 Sutherland Paper Company, 112 NLRB 622.
114 NLRB No. 47.
387644-56--vol. 114--15