Seattle-First National Bank

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 4, 1979

241 N.L.R.B. 751 (N.L.R.B. 1979)

SEATTLE-FIRST NATIONAL BANK
Seattle-First National Bank and Financial Institution
Employees of America, Local 1182, Chartered by
Retail Clerks International Union, AFL-CIO, Peti-
tioner. Case 19-AC-23
April 5, 1979
DECISION AND AMENDMENT OF
CERTIFICATION
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS MURPHY
AND TRUESDAI.E
On November 30, 1970, the Board, in Cases 19
RM 816 and 19 RC-5301, certified the Firstbank In-
dependent Employees Association (herein FIEA or
Petitioner) as the collective-bargaining representative
in an appropriate unit of all the Employer's employ-
ees within the State of Washington, excluding profes-
sional employees, confidential employees, manage-
ment trainees, and supervisors and guards as defined
in the Act. On June 19. 1978, the Petitioner filed this
petition to amend the certification to change the
name of the certified bargaining agent from "First-
bank Independent Employees Association" to "Fi-
nancial Institution Employees of America, Local
1182, chartered by Retail Clerks International Union,
AFL CIO."
A hearing was held on the petition on July 26 and
27, 1978, before Hearing Officer Lynne C. Litwiller at
Seattle. Washington. All parties appeared at the hear-
ing and were given full opportunity to participate
therein. After the hearing, the Petitioner and the Em-
ployer filed briefs with the Regional Director. There-
after, the Regional Director transferred the case to
the Board for decision.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in ths proceeding to a three-member panel.
The rulings of the Hearing Officer are free from
prejudicial error. They are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board
finds:'
FlEA has had a collective-bargaining agreement
with the Employer since 1971. The current collective-
The Petitioner filed a brief'. differing slightly from that filed with the
Regional Director, with the Board. The Fimploer has moved to strike this
brief as not being n compliance with Sec. 102.67(i) of the Board's Rules and
Regulations. Series 8, as amended. we agree and grant the Emploer's mo-
tion to stnke. The Petitioner has moved to consolidate this case with Cases
19-CA 9835 and 19 CA 9916, also issued this da, at 241 NLRB No. 117.
The Employer filed a memorandum in opposition. we find that the cases are
not similar enough in law or fact to warrant consolidation. and the Petition-
er's motion is herebh denied The Emploer has requested oral argument.
This request s hereby denied as the record the exceptions. and the briefs
adequately present the issues and the positions of the parties
bargaining agreement was terminated by the Em-
ployer on October 30, 1977.
During 1977, the executive council of FIEA autho-
rized its bargaining committee to explore affiliation
with other unions. The committee, after contacting
several unions, voted unanimously to seek affiliation
with the Retail Clerks International Union. The affili-
ation agreement was unanimously approved by the
executive council of FIEA. A notice was mailed to all
unit representatives (the equivalent of shop stewards)
informing them of meetings to be held throughout the
State on January 6, 7, and 8, 1978.2 At these meetings
the unit representatives were informed of the terms of
affiliation, the election procedure, and the standards
for voter eligibility. In order to vote an individual had
to be either a current member of FIEA or join by
January 19 and pay I month's dues of $4. The unit
representatives were instructed to contact all unit em-
ployees and inform them of the pending affiliation
vote and specifically to contact nonmembers and ex-
plain to them the eligibility standards. Concurrently a
letter was sent to all unit employees informing them
of the pending election and the eligibility require-
ments. After this initial meeting other meetings were
held at all work locations. These meetings were at-
tended by officials of both FIEA and the Retail
Clerks International Union and were open to all unit
employees. On or about January 17 another letter
was sent to all unit employees reiterating the eligibil-
ity standards.
On January 20 a notice was sent to all FIEA mem-
bers informing them that a affiliation secret-ballot
election would be conducted by the Washington State
Public Employment Relations Commission (PERC).
The ballots were to be mailed by February 5 and had
to be back to PERC by February 21. The notice
stated the ballot question and contained additional
information regarding the locations of meetings being
held throughout the State on February 4 and 5. These
meetings were again attended by representatives of
both Unions who spoke about the affiliation and an-
swered questions. Two other informational letters
were sent to FIEA members before the meetings.
PERC mailed the ballots on February 4 to 2.624
members; there were approximately 4,800 employees
in the unit. The results were 1,206 votes for affiliation
and 774 against. FIEA applied for, and on April I
was granted, a charter by the Retail Clerks Interna-
tional Union.
The Employer attacks the affiliation on the
grounds that: (I) the substitution of the Petitioner for
FIEA is a substantial change in the bargaining repre-
sentative and thus raises a "question concerning rep-
resentation" requiring a Board-conducted election:
2 Hereinafter all dates are In 1978.
241 NLRB No. 116
751
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(2) only members of FIEA were allowed to vote; and
(3) FIEA did not follow its own constitution in estab-
lishing voter eligibility standards.
This case is controlled by our recent second Sup-
plemental Decision and Order in Amoco Production
Company.3 Regarding the Employer's first argument,
as we said in Amoco (Id.)
lain affiliation does not create a new organiza-
tion, nor does it result in the dissolution of an
already existing organization. The organizations
participating in the affiliation determine whether
any administrative or organizational changes are
necessary in the affiliating organization.4
4 [Olnly union members will be affected by any change in the consti-
tution and internal union rules and regulations, as they have voluntarily
agreed to do by virtue of the majority within their ranks having chosen
to affiliate.
Similary, the Employer's second argument is also
lacking in merit.
Since we view an affiliation vote as basically
concerned with the organization and structure of
the union and not the representational status of
employees, it is the sort of internal union matter
into which the Board does not ordinarily intrude.
The Board determines whether the vote was con-
ducted with adequate due process: including, for
example, proper notice to all members, an or-
derly vote, and some reasonable precautions to
maintain the secrecy of the ballot.4
The Employer is not contending that there was any
irregularity or impropriety in PERC's administration
of the election, and it is readily apparent from the
facts that [a]dequate notice, discussion and time for
reflection were provided all members before the elec-
tion."5
The Employer argues that the election was defi-
cient because the voter eligibility requirements were
not in accordance with the FIEA constitutional re-
quirement that only members in good standing as of
3239 NLRB 1195 (1979). Member Truesdale concurnng, Members
Jenkins and Penello dissenting separately.
4
Id 3-4.
Id,
the last day of the month preceding the notice of elec-
tion shall be allowed to vote (here December 30). But
FIEA permitted members to vote who were on the
last dues-checkoff list submitted by the Employer for
October 1977 as well as employees joining as late as
January 19.
The Petitioner contends that its actions were rea-
sonable in the circumstances. The Petitioner alleges
that the Employer put it in this dilemma by terminat-
ing dues checkoff. The Petitioner was consequently
faced with the difficult, if not impossible, task of de-
termining who, in this sizable unit spread over the
State of Washington in approximately 171 locations,
was a current dues-paying member. It therefore de-
cided that anyone who joined and paid I month's
dues before January 19 would be eligible to vote. The
Petitioner also argues that its conduct was intended
to, and in fact did, enfranchise unit members. More-
over, the Petitioner submits that there is no evidence
that FIEA's actions were intended to undermine, or
resulted in the undermining of, the electoral process.
We agree with the Petitioner. In the circumstances
the broadening of the franchise does not support de-
nial of the petition under our decision in Amoco, su-
pra. We therefore find that the Employer's arguments
are without merit.
In view of the foregoing, we shall amend the certi-
fication in Cases 19-RM-816 and 19-RC-5301 to re-
flect the current name and affiliation of the certified
Union. This amendment is not to be considered as a
new certification or recertification.
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the petition to amend the
certification filed by the Financial Institution Em-
ployees of America, Local 1182, chartered by Retail
Clerks International Union, AFL-CIO, be, and it
hereby is, granted, and that the decision and Certifi-
cation of Representative in Cases 19-RM-816 and
19-RC-5301 be amended by substituting "Financial
Institution Employees of America, Local 1182, char-
tered by Retail Clerks International Union, AFL-
CIO" for "Firstbank Independent Employees Associ-
ation."
752