RPM Products, Inc.

RPM PRODUCTS, INC., RUNGE DIV. 855 RPM Products, Inc., Runge Division and Interna- tional Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW, Petitioner. Case 7-RC-12660 May 7, 1975 DECISION ON REVIEW AND ORDER BY MEMBERS JENKINS, KENNEDY, AND PENELLO On November 14, 1974, the Regional Director for Region 7 issued a Decision and Direction of Election in the above-entitled proceeding in which he directed an election in the Petitioner's requested unit of produc- tion and maintenance employees at the Employer's 381 Melvin Avenue, Croswell, Michigan, facility, including truckdrivers, rejecting the Employer's contention that its existing contract with an employee committee' op- erates as a bar to the petition. Thereafter, the Em- ployer, in accordance with Section 102.67 of the Na- tional Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, filed a timely request for review of the Regional Director's decision on the grounds that, in concluding that no contract bar exists, he made find- ings of fact which are clearly erroneous and departed from officially reported precedent. On December 13, 1974, by telegraphic order, the request for review was granted and the election stayed pending decision on review. 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 this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the entire record in this case with respect to the issue under review and finds that no question affecting commerce exists concerning the representation of certain employees of the Em- ployer within the meaning of Sections 9(c)(1) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act, for the following reasons: The Employer contends that the Regional Director erred in finding that the existing agreement between it and the committee is completely silent as to the em- ployees intended to be covered and that no ambiguity exists which can be resolved by parole evidence. It argues in effect that (1) the agreement, together with the employee handbook which was an'tegral part thereof, and the reference in the agreement to an at- tached schedule as an example of how the computation of 6-month cost-of-living increases is formulated, when viewed as a whole, indicate that the unit covered com- prises all or almost all employees of the Employer, and (2) testimony in the record makes clear that the con- tract was intended to encompass basically a production and maintenance unit, excluding truckdrivers, office I Referred to herein as the committee As no appearance was made on its behalf, the Regional Director identified it for purposes of this proceeding as RPM Products, Inc., Employee Committee. clerical employees, and management employees. The agreement advanced as a bar to the instant peti- tion on its face indicates it was executed on December 27, 1973, to be effective January 1, 1974, until Decem- ber'31, 1976. The agreement, an informal document less than two pages long, is signed by the Employer and three employee representatives. It' sets forth a number of provisions,' and states that the employee handbook is considered an integral part of the agreement, as well as all benefits and conditions of employment existing prior to January 1, 1974. The Employer introduced in evidence a 6-month schedule dated July 1, 1974, prov- iding a 20-cent cost-of-living increase and listing a graduation scale of pay rates for a number of "factory" job classifications.' There was testimony that a similar schedule was prepared for the cost-of-living increases granted on January 1, 1974, and that "it was under- stood to be part of the contract." The employee hand- book, also introduced in evidence, sets forth in some detail personal conduct and company rules, employee benefits, and other general policy. Contrary to the Regional Director, we believe that, because the agreement between the Employer and the committee on its face appears to have general applica- tion, sufficient ambiguity exists as to the scope of the unit covered to justify resort to parole evidence.' And we view as adequate support for a finding that the agreement covers basically a production and mainte- nance unit the testimony that the 6-month listings of employee classifications and their current graduation scale of pay rates, adjusted for cost-of-living increases, are considered "an integral part of the agreement." Therefore, we conclude that the agreement operates as a bar to the instant petition for a unit of production and maintenance emloyees.5 Accordingly, we shall dismiss the petition. ORDER It is hereby ordered that the petition herein be, and it hereby is, dismissed. 2 The provisions covered cost-of-living increases to be added to the hourly rate every 6 months-with reference to an "attached schedule as an example of how the computation is formulated", a raise-15-cent hourly rate in- crease each year for the next 3 years, holdiay pay-"if snowed in", pension plan-retirement plan, personal days off; life insurance; 4 weeks' vacation; and birthday off with pay 3 The listed classifications are. tool and die maker, setup, maintenance, roll mill trainee, tool and die trainee, inspector, layout inspector, shipping and receiver, general production/male and female, Heliark welding, ark welding, and lamtor Contrary to the Regional Director, we believe the testimony of Committee Member Storm clearly indicates that tool and die makers were represented by the committee and that they were included in the contract unit. 4 See Boston Woven Hose and Rubber Company, Division of American Biltrite Rubber Company, Incorporated, 123 NLRB 501 (1959). 5 See Applachutn Shale Products Co., 121 NLRB 1160 (1958). Even assuming that the record testimony is unclear as to whether or not the tool and die makers are included in the contract unit, such circumstance would not in our view, contrary to the Regional Director, remove the contract as a bar to the instant petition 217 NLRB No. 151