Aircraft Turbine Service, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 8, 1968

173 N.L.R.B. 709 (N.L.R.B. 1968)

AIRCRAFT TURBINE SERVICE
Aircraft Turbine Service, Inc. and Transport Workers
Union of America , AFL-CIO, Local 501, Peti-
tioner . Case 29-RC-105 6.
November 8, 1968
DECISION AND ORDER
By MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS,
AND ZAGORIA
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a hearing
was held before Jerome Katz, Hearing Officer. After
the hearing was closed, the Regional Director trans-
ferred the case to the Board in accordance with
Section 102.67(h) of the National Labor Relations
Board Rules and Regulations. The Employer and
Petitioner have filed briefs in support of their
respective positions.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-mem-
ber 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 labor organization involved claims to repre-
sent certain employees of the Employer.
3. No question affecting commerce exists con-
cerning the representation of employees of the
Employer within the meaning of Section 9(c)(1) and
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
The Employer is engaged in the overhaul, service,
and repair of gas turbines, compressors, and valves
used in aircraft. For approximately the first 12 years
of its existence, the Employer had never had a formal
collective-bargaining agreement with any union.
In the latter part of 1967, the employees selected
five men to act as the Employees Committee and
negotiate a collective-bargaining agreement with he
Company. The negotiations culminated in a signed
agreement which covers the period from December 1,
1967, through November 30, 1970. The agreement
sets forth various provisions with regard to benefits,
vacations, sick leave, automatic increases, and ment
I News Press Publishing Co., 145 NLRB 803, Moore Drop Forging
Company, 168 NLRB No. 134
709
increases. The contract also provided that the Em-
ployer would present a pension plan in February
1968.
Thereafter, the Committee met with management
because of the Employer's delay in presenting the
pension plan. In March 1968, the plan was presented
to the Committee. Upon the Committee's request the
pension plan was then presented to the employees.
,They rejected it and no further formal meetings have
taken place between the Committee and the Em-
ployer since that time.
The parties agree that the Employer has adhered to
the contract negotiated between it and the Employees
Committee. However, the Petitioner contends that
that contract should not bar the petition because the
Employees Committee is defunct.
Two of the committeemen aie no longer employed
by the Company and have never been replaced on the
Committee. Although they have met with manage-
ment on various occasions concerning problems of
some of the employees, the remaining committeemen
claim that they dealt with the company officials as
individual employees and not as members of the
Employees Committee.
We cannot agree with the Petitioner's claim that
the Employees Committee is defunct. There was
never any affirmative action taken to dissolve the
Committee. The remaining committeemen did not
inform the Employer or the employees that they were
no longer functioning as the Employees Committee;
nor did they even call a meeting of the employees to
discuss the status of the Committee. Although the
remaining committeemen appear unwilling to con-
tinue to represent the employees, we cannot find, on
the record before us, that the Committee as a labor
organization is, in fact, unable to do so,' or that the
employees no longer desire that the Committee
continue to function as then bargaining representa-
tive.
We find that the Employees Committee is not
defunct and that it would not effectuate the purpose
of the Act to terminate its status as bargaining
representative of the employees herein. Accordingly,
we conclude that since the petition was filed more
than 90 days before the expiration of the current
contract, the contract is a bar to the petition, and we
shall, therefore, dismiss the petition.'
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the petition filed herein
be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
2 Leonard Wholesale Meats, Inc , 136 NLRB 1000
173 NLRB No. 110