The Armstrong Rubber Co.

ARMSTRONG RUBBER COMPANY The Armstrong Rubber Company' and Herbert R. Knapp, et al., Petitioner, and United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum and Plastic Workers of America, Local Union No. 164 . Case 18-RD-563 January 18, 1974 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND PENELLO A petition was duly filed on April 12, 1973, under Section 9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. Or, May 10, 1973, the Regional Director for Region 18 dismissed the petition and on May 26, 1973, the Petitioner appealed that dismissal. There- after, on July 23. 1973, the Board issued a ruling on the appeal in which it directed that a hearing he held. A hearing was held on September 13, 1973, before Hearing Officer Karen A. Hammerstrom. Following the hearing, the Regional Director, pursuant to Section 102.67 of the National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations and Statements of Procedure, Series 8, as amended, transferred this case to the National Labor Relations Board for decision. The Petitioner and the Union filed briefs. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's rulings made at the hearing and finds that they are free from prejudicial error. They 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, and it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. 2. The Petitioner, an employee of the Employer, asserts that the Union, a labor organization, is no longer the representative, as defined in Section 9(a) of the Act, of the employees designated in the petition. 3. The Petitioner seeks to decertify the Union as the representative of all the tire laboratory techni- cians at the Employer's Des Moines, Iowa, plant, excluding all other employees. The Union contends that the petition should be dismissed because the certified unit sought is not coextensive with the existing collective-bargaining unit and therefore is not appropriate for decertification. The Petitioner takes the position that the certified unit is appropri- ate for decertification because its separate identity 513 has been maintained in bargaining. The Employer is in agreement with the Petitioner. The Employer, a Connecticut corporation, is engaged in the manufacture and sale of rubber tires at its Midwest Division plant in Des Moines, Iowa. There are approximately 1.400 employees at the Des Moines plant who are represented by the Union. There are nine classified as tire laboratory techni- cians, sometimes referred to as laboratory develop- ment employees, who work in the technical services department. Others in that department include professional engineers and chemists and clerical employees who are unrepresented. Since 1943 the Employer has recognized the Union as the collective-bargaining representative of the production and maintenance employees at its Des Moines, Iowa, plant. On January 16, 1969, pursuant to a Stipulation for Certification Upon Consent Election, the Board certified the Union as the collective-bargaining representative for all tire labo- ratory technicians at the Des Moines plant in Case 18-RC-7720. Since 1959 the Employer and the International Union of United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum and Plastic Workers of America have executed master Uniform Agreements covering for the most part units of production and maintenance employees at the various Armstrong plants. The Employer and local unions of the International have also entered into supplemental agreements at individual plants. The most recent master Uniform Agreement, applicable to the Midwest Division, Des Moines, Iowa, as well as to other of the Employer's divisions, was effective from October 15, 1970, to July 1, 1973. A Local Supplemental agreement, entered into between the Employer and the Union, Local No. 164, applicable to the Des Moines plant, was effective from December 12, 1970, to July 1, 1973. At the time of the hearing, in September 1973. the Uniform and Local Supplemental agreement, had expired. The most recent master Uniform and Supplemen- tal Agreement included the tire laboratory techni- cians. The Uniform Agreement provided, in its recognition clause, that the term "employees" was subject to the inclusions and exclusions currently recognized by the parties and set out in local plant supplemental agreements. The 1970 Local Supple- mental Agreement specifically included the disputed category. The recognition clause read: The term "employee" or "employees," for the purpose of this agreement shall apply only to incentive and hourly-rated production and main- tenance employees including shipping, receiving and warehouse employees. Janitors, storekeepers, 1 The Employer's name appears as amended at the hearing 208 NLRB No. 83 514 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD powerhouse employees, finished tire inspectors, laboratory and development employees only as defined by the National Labor Relations Board in N.L.R.B. Case # 18-RC-7720, Scheduling em- ployees only as defined by the National Labor Relations Board in N.L.R.B. Case # 18- RC-7791, but shall exclude executives, super- intendents, foremen, supervisors, office and cleri- cal workers, employees engaged in engineering, laboratory and development work including quality control technicians and plant protection employees. [Emphasis supplied.] This specific reference to the unit certified in Case 18-RC-7720 translated the parties' understanding, reached during negotiation of the 1970 Uniform Agreement, that the tire laboratory technicians "shall be included" in the Local Supplemental Agreement.2 The major terms of the most recent Uniform and Local Supplemental collective-bargaining agree- ments, as well as other agreements for employee benefit programs, apply to all employees in the contract unit including the tire laboratory techni- cians. The benefit programs are retirement pension, life insurance, severance pay, hospitalization, surgi- cal, medical, accident and sickness insurance, and supplemental workmen's compensation. A laborato- ry technician took part in negotiations and was a signatory to the 1970 Local Supplemental Agree- ment. While there are some special provisions in the Local Supplemental Agreement applicable to tire laboratory technicians, they reflect only a recogni- tion of the technicians' special skills. They are insufficient to establish a separateness from the existing contract unit.3 The 1969 decision in The Armstrong Rubber Company, 180 NLRB 410, is not dispositive of this case. The earlier case arose before execution of the 2 Joint Exh. i, p 137. Letter from Mr Vincent M Helm for the Employer to Mr Robert Garber, representative of the Union's parent International 3 These include seniority, Job qualifications, probationary period, layoff, most recent Uniform and Local Supplemental agreements. The Union had filed a unit clarification petition seeking to add to the long recognized production and maintenance bargaining unit two units that had been separately certified in early 1969. These were the tire laboratory technicians, who are involved in the subject case, and the scheduling department employees. The Board dismissed the petition because the Union had not included other employees having like interests and functions. Since the decision in that case the Union and Employer, in their collective-bargaining agreements, have treated the tire laboratory technicians as part of the overall unit. Differences that existed in 1969 between the tire laboratory technicians and the production and maintenance employees appear to have been removed in the intervening years. The tire laboratory technicians, once salaried, are now hourly paid and their employee benefits are no different from those received by other employees covered by the Uniform Agreement. In view of the past 2-1/2-year history of bargaining and the several applicable bargaining agreements establishing substantially uniform conditions of employment for all represented employees, including the tire laboratory technicians, we find that there has been an effective merger of the individually certified unit into the broader recognized contract unit. We find that, as the certified unit sought is but a segment of the existing recognized contract unit, it is not appropriate for decertification.4 We shall therefore dismiss the petition. ORDER It is hereby ordered that the petition filed herein be, and it hereby is, dismissed. and recall, and also apply to other selected groups in addition to tire laboratory technicians 4 W T Grant Company, 179 NLRB 670