Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.

GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY, ETC. 889 4. By negotiating, executing, and maintaining the aforesaid collective-bargaining agreement with Respondent Employer as the alleged exclusive bargaining repre- sentative of said year-round production and maintenance employees, International Chemical Workers Union and/or its Local No. 666, AFL-CIO, engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act. 5. By aforesaid conduct and by the interrogation of employees , Glynn S. Curry, R. V. Smith, Mack M. Griffey, and Russell J. Knowles in the presence of union and company officials in the plant office on March 23, 1959, for the purpose of en- forcing the illegal collective-bargaining agreement, Respondent Employer and Re- spondent Union interfered with, restrained, and coerced employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, and thereby engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a) (1) and 8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act, respectively. 6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. [Recommendations omitted from publication.] Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company (Houston Synthetic Rubber .Plant) I and J. H. Blann, Petitioner and Local 347, Interna- tional Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO .2 Case No. 23-RD-81. February 28, 1961 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a decertification petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Wilton Waldrop, hearing 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 Petitioner, an employee of the Employer, contends that the Union is no longer the exclusive bargaining representative of the employees involved herein within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act. 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 decertification election in a unit of process control chemists. The bargaining history at the plant shows that in 1952, in a consent election, the process control chemists voted to be represented by the Union. They were thereupon included in a pro- duction and maintenance unit and represented by Houston Metal Trades Council. This arrangement continued until 1956, when, pur- suant to another consent election, the Union was certified for a unit of production employees, including the process control chemists. In 1 The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing. 2 Herein called the Union. 130 NLRB No. 65. 890 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1958, because of a demand for recognition in the existing unit by PACE,3 an independent union, the Employer filed a petition with the Board asking for an election in the existing unit. While the pro- ceeding was pending, six of the process control chemists filed a formal request with the Regional Office asking that all the process control chemists be allowed to vote separately from the production employ- ees, asserting that they are professional employees and thus entitled to separate representation. Pursuant to this request, the Employer, the Union, and PACE agreed to exclude them from the unit. In a consent-election proceeding conducted in the production unit, the Union was selected as majority representative and was so certified. The Union thereafter filed a petition seeking a unit of process control chemists, and, as the result of a consent election, was certified as the majority representative for this unit of employees. Thereafter, the Union and the Employer bargained, as in the past, for a single overall unit of production employees and process control chemists. On Octo- ber 20, 1958, the Employer and the Union entered into a 2-year con- tract covering one unit of all the employees in the plant represented by the Union. The instant petition was filed on March 4, 1960. The Petitioner contends that in view of the separate Board certifi- cation for the unit of process control chemists, a decertification elec- tion must be held in that unit, irrespective of any bargaining history to the contrary. The Petitioner also contends that the process con- trol chemists are professional employees and as such must be given the opportunity to vote as to whether they wish to be included in a unit with nonprofessional employees.4 The Union argues that as the only bargaining history involves an overall unit of production employees and process control chemists, the Board should not under these cir- cumstances disrupt the existing bargaining relationship. The Em- ployer takes no position. The particular facts here indicate that in connection with the 1958 proceeding on the Employer's petition, a formal objection was made by the process control chemists to their inclusion in an overall unit without affording them an opportunity for self-determination. By stipulation, the parties thereupon excluded these chemists from the unit, thus giving effect to the chemists' position that they were entitled to separate status. The Union was thereafter certified in such unit, excluding the chemists. In the subsequent consent proceeding, the Union petitioned for and succeeded in obtaining a certification for a separate unit of the process control chemists. In these circumstances, a Process and Control Engineers , Local 10, herein referred to as PACE. We find it unnecessary to determine in this proceeding the professional status of the employees in question in view of the result reached herein . It is also clear that even if the chemists are professional employees within the meaning of the Act, they would not on this basis alone be entitled to decertify. See Campbell Soup Company, 111 NLRB 234 Westinghouse Electric Corporation, 115 NLRB 530. GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY, ETC. 891 the chemists could, and apparently did, reasonably believe that as a group their separate identity for bargaining purposes was preserved and fixed by Board determination. That the Union chose thereafter to enter into a 2-year contract with the Employer merging both of the certified units is not sufficient in our opinion to obliterate the separate certification in view of the particular facts and equities in this case.' Accordingly, we find the following employees at the Employer's Houston, Texas, plant constitute a unit appropriate for the purpose of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act : All process control chemists, excluding all other employees and all supervisors as defined in the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] MEMBER FANNING, dissenting : I disagree with my colleagues' granting of a decertification election among the process control chemists to permit them to withdraw from representation as part of an appropriate, historical unit of production employees. While, under the Board's consent procedures, elections were con- ducted in 1958 in separate groups of production employees and proc- ess control chemists, the separation of these groups was based upon the stipulation of the parties and was in no sense a Board determination of appropriate bargaining units. In any event, both elections resulted in the selection and certification of the Union, and the 2-year bargain- ing history which ensued was virtually the same as it had been since 1952-for a single unit including the process control chemists with the production employees.' In like situations the principle has been well settled (though it is not mentioned in the majority opinion) that where a certified unit is e Our dissenting colleague cites four cases to support the proposition that : "In like situations the principle has been well settled (though it is not mentioned in the majority opinion ) that where a certified unit is superseded by an effective bargaining history on a broader basis, the existing, historical unit is controlling for decertification purposes." [Emphasis supplied .] However, of the four cases cited, only one, San Juan Mercantile Corporation, 117 NLRB 8, involved a decertification proceeding-and that case, to the extent that it is inconsistent herewith , is hereby overruled. 9 Even if it were assumed that the process control chemists are, as they claim, pro- fessional employees under the Act, they would not be entitled to a decertification election by reason of such status . Campbell Soup Company, 111 NLRB 234; Westinghouse Electric Company, 115 NLRB 530. In any case, the record does clearly show that they are not professionals since, among other things , they are not required to have an academic degree, and the tests they perform are standardized , following instructions in a test manual. They appear, however, to be technical employees , and as such may be excluded together with all other technical employees from a production unit only if either the employer or union so elect. See Litton Industries of Maryland, Incorporated, 125 NLRB 722 By merging the process control chemists with the production employees in their contract after the 1958 consent elections , the parties merely accomplished by assent what they could properly do if the unit issue was made a matter for Board decision. 892 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD superseded by an effective bargaining history I on a broader unit basis, the existing, historical unit is controlling for decertification purposes." As the Board has repeatedly stated, Section 9(c) (1) (A) (ii) "was designed to provide a method for determining whether an existing unit of employees desire to continue their current representation and the Board is required to conduct an election thereunder only when a question is raised concerning such current representation in the exist- ing unit." 0 The vague consideration of the "equities" involved, which essen- tially forms the majority rationale, is a novel, confusing, and irrele- vant factor to be injected into the particular issue of appropriate unit.10 In my view, the election herein has no justification under well- defined Board policy and precedent, and can only serve to disrupt the existing bargaining relationship, by allowing a segment of employees properly belonging in the production unit to decide whether they wish to be unrepresented. MEMBER KIMBALL took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Direction of Election. 7 The factor of bargaining history, save only in cases of conflict with fundamental Board policy, has always been accorded significant , if not controlling, weight in deciding appropriate units. The reason is basic to the collective -bargaining principle, and flows from the Act' s major purpose of stabilizing industrial relations. 8 E.g., San Juan Mercantile Corp., 117 NLRB 8; Chase Brass & Copper Co., 123 NLRB 1032; International Minerals & Chemical Corporation (Potash Division ), 113 NLRB 53; U.S. Time Corporation, 108 NLRB 1435. 9 Westinghouse Electric Corporation , 115 NLRB 530, 532. "The decision herein provides that if a majority of the process control chemists vote for the Union, they will be included in the production unit-an exceptional procedure in decertification elections. I think the same condition was imphedly present in the 1958 consent election, or at least that the process control chemists must have known that the Union, if selected, would likely continue to represent them together with the production employees. And they must have been aware of, and acquiesced in, the 2-year contract which the Union thereafter executed covering them in a single overall unit. Pine State Creamery Company, Inc. and Southern Ice Cream i and Chauffeurs, Teamsters & Helpers Local #391-Inter- national Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse- men and Helpers of America, Petitioner. Case No. 11-R.C- 1401. February 08, 1961 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Martin L. Ball, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. ' The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing and in accord with the evidence. 130 NLRB No. 98.