Northwest Plastics, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 11, 1958

121 N.L.R.B. 815 (N.L.R.B. 1958)

NORTHWEST PLASTICS, INC 815
The master contract provides for supplemental contracts between
each local union and local plant management However, such con-
tracts cannot supersede or conflict with any provisions of the master
contract These supplemental contracts are concerned with matters
of local importance General wage provisions are contained in the
master contract, as are complete provisions covering all other substan-
tive terms of employment
The foregoing facts indicate the intent of the Employer and the
UAW to treat the 6 divisions represented by the latter as one bargain-
ing unit This intent is clearly demonstrated by the recognition clause
in the master contract which refers to the "employes in the bargaining
unit" Accordingly, we find that the Employer's aircraft and valve
divisions are part of a 6-division, multiplant bargaining unit 2 The
record further indicates that employees possessing the same skills
as the employees sought by the Petitioner work in at least three other
divisions The Board has long held that where, as in the instant case,
there has been a history of bargaining an a multiplant basis, the craft
units sought to be severed must be coextensive with the multiplant
unit 3 As the Petitioner's proposed units are not so coextensive, we
find that they are inappropriate We shall therefore grant the mo-
tions to dismiss the petition which are based upon this ground
[The Board dismissed the petition ]
2 General Motors Co? porattion , etc, 120 NLRB 1215
8 General Motors Corporation, etc , supra, St Regis Paper Company, 105 NLRB 371
Northwest Plastics, Inc. and James D. Denney, et al. , Petitioner
and United Packinghouse Workers of America, AFL-CIO.,
Case No 18-UD-15 September 11, 1958
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (e) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Clarence A Meter, 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 [Members Rodgers, Jenkins, and
Fanning]
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds
1 The Employer is engaged in commerce, within the meaning of
the Act
121 NLRB No 110
:816 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent employees of
the Employer. -
3. A question exists concerning the Union's authority to make a
union-security agreement within the meaning of Section 9 (e) of the
Act.
On February 26, 1958, the Employer and the Union executed for a
1-year term, running from January 12, 1958, to January 11, 1959, a
'collective-bargaining agreement which contains a union-security pro-
vision. The petition in this case, which was filed on May 14, 1958,
seeks an election to rescind the Union's authority to make a union-
.security agreement.
4. We find that the following employees of. the Employer constitute
a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within
the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act: All production and main-
tenance employees at the Employer's St. Paul, Minnesota, plant, in-
cluding production inspectors and regular part-time employees, but
,excluding managers, salesmen, engineers, office clerical employees,
chief of quality control and product coordinator, superintendents,
assistant to finishing superintendent, foremen, inspection supervisors,
head shipping clerk, head powder receiving clerk, assistant molding
foreman, head of fiberglass department, professional employees,
guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
5. The Union contends that about 60 laid-off employees are only
temporarily laid off, on the ground that under the current contract
between the Employer and the Union these laid-off employees retain
their seniority rights for 12 months. However, the Board has held
that the mere fact that laid-off employees have continued seniority
rights does not entitle them to vote, but rather the test is whether there
'exists a reasonable expectancy of their reemployment in the near
future.' The Employer's officers testified that the layoff was caused
by a decline in business, which shows no indication of increasing in the
near future to justify the reemployment of these employees, and was
further caused by a permanent reduction in the work force due to the
transfer of about 30 percent of the plant equipment to a new plant
outside the State. Although the Employer indicated that should
business conditions warrant, laid-off employees would be recalled in
the order of their seniority, there appears to be no reasonable ex-
pectancy of their recall in the near future. Accordingly, we find that
these employees in a laid-off status are not eligible to vote in the
election.2
There are also about 12 employees who are in, what the Employer
calls, a voluntary laid-off status. The Employer has a layoff policy
which permits senior employees to volunteer for layoff in order to
1 Higgins, Inc., 111 NLRB 797.
z See Brown -Forman Distillers Corporation, 118 NLRB 454.
KEARNEY & TRECKER CORPORATION 8-17
allow employees with less seniority to continue to work. -Under this
layoff policy, these voluntary laid-off employees may return to work,
at any time after giving the Employer a week's notice, without•any
change in their previous status. We find that these employees are
temporarily laid off within the Board's meaning of the term, and,
therefore, are eligible to vote in the election 3
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
8 See Stretch-Tea Co., 118 NLRB 1359.
Kearney & Trecker Corporation and Technical Engineers Asso-
ciation (Independent ), Petitioner. Case No. 13-RC-5912. Sep-
tember 12, 1958
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before Gerald S.
Patterson, 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 [Members Rodgers, Jenkins, and
Fanning].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the National Labor Relations Act. _
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent.certain em-'
ployees of the Employer.. _
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-'
tion of employees 'of. the Employer, within the meaning of Section
9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Petitioner seeks a unit of all employees of the Employer in
technical positions, including tool designers, subsupervisor of tool
design, application leadmen, process 'planners, standards engineers,
time=study men, draftsmen,' apprentice draftsmen, process engineers,'
methods planners, riiachine• tool procurement ;engineer, methods en
gineers, and methods engineer trainees. It was stipulated that all
employees in these classificatidns be included in'the unit.
At the-hearing and in its brief, the Employer contended that there
were certain additional technical employees who must be included in
any unit found by the Board to be, appropriate. The Petitioner took
the position'that these additional categories, should be excluded. All
121 NLRB N6:107.
487926-59-vol. 121---53