Chrysler Corp.Download PDFNational Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsJun 25, 1965153 N.L.R.B. 578 (N.L.R.B. 1965) Copy Citation 578 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD in connection with the preparation of tower footings on Ets-Hokin's electric transmission line 2, located between Glen Canyon Dam and Flagstaff, Arizona. 2. International Union of Operating Engineers, Local No. 428 of Arizona, AFL-CIO, is not entitled, by means proscribed by Section 8 (b) (4) (D) of the Act, to force or require Ets-Hokin Corporation, to assign the aforementioned work to its members, 3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision and Determination of Dispute, International Union of Operating Engineers, Local No. 428 of Arizona, AFL-CIO, shall notify the Regional Director for Region 28, in writing, whether or not it will refrain from forcing or requiring Ets-Hokin Corporation, by means proscribed by Section 8(b) (4) (D), to assign the work in dispute to employees represented by Operating Engineers rather than to employees represented by IBEW. Chrysler Corporation (Lyons Trim Plant ) 1 and International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Im- plement Workers of America (UAW) AFL-CIO, Petitioner Chrysler Corporation (Lyons Trim Plant ) and Employees of Chrysler Corporation , Lyons Trim Plant , Petitioner and Uphol- sterers' International Union of North America, AFL-CIO (through its agent , Upholstering Spring and Bedding Workers Union , Local 600) 1 and Chrysler Trim Division Workers Inde- pendent Union: Cases Nos. 7-RC-67464 and 7-RD-611. June 25,1965 DECISION AND ORDER Upon petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a hearing was held before Hearing Officer Milton Fischer. The Hearing Officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. 1 The name of the Employer appears in the caption as amended at the hearing. 2Upliolsterers' International Union of North America, AFL-CIO (through its agent, Upholstering Spring and Bedding Workers Union, Local 600), hereinafter called Local 600, intervened at the hearing in Case No 7-RD-611 on the basis of its contractual interest with the Employer . The name of Local 600 appears in the caption as amended at the hearing. 3 Chrysler Trim Division workers Independent Union, hereinafter called the Independent Union, is composed of substantially the same employees on whose behalf the petition in Case No. 7-RD-611 was filed , and was permitted to intervene at the hearing in that case on the basis of an adequate showing of interest in furtherance of its desire to appear on the ballot should an election be scheduled. a Daring the hearing, the Employer and Petitioner in Case No 7-RC-6746 agreed to enter into a stipulation for certification for consent election in an agreed-upon appropriate unit and all other parties stipulated the appropriateness of, and disclaimed any interest in, this unit . Thereafter , in the absence of any objection thereto, the Hearing Officer granted a motion to sever Case No. 7-RC-6746 from Case No. 7-RD-611, and the hearing then proceeded with respect to the issues raised in Case No. 7-RD-611. 153 NLRB No. 48. CHRYSLER CORPORATION 579 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with these cases to a three-member panel [Members Fanning, Brown, and Jenkins]. Upon the entire record in these cases, the Board finds : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain employees of the Employer. 3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa- tion of certain employees of the Employer within the meaning of Sec- tion 9(c) (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act for the following reasons: Employees on whose behalf the petition was filed seek a decertifica- tion election in the bargaining unit currently represented by Local 600, and the Intervenor Independent Union seeks to represent this same unit. These parties contend that the Employer's collective-bar- gaining agreement with Local 600 is a premature extension of Local 600's contract with the Employer's predecessor. The Employer and Local 600 contend that their contract is a new contract covering employees in an appropriate unit and that such contract is a bar to this proceeding. On April 30,1963, American Felt Auto Company, hereinafter called American, and Local 600 entered into a collective-bargaining agree- ment for a 2-year term expiring on April 30, 1965. On December 9, 1964, American's employees engaged in a strike because of a dispute concerning piece rates and production standards. While the strike was in progress, the Employer entered into negotiations for the pur- chase of the plant and, at the same time, also negotiated a strike settle- ment and a collective-bargaining agreement with Local 600's repre- sentative. On December 17, the striking employees, some of whom were both parties to the petition and members of the Independent Union, met and approved the agreed-upon terms, and the strike there- upon terminated. On December 18, the Employer purchased Ameri- can's plant, storage plants, machinery, equipment, and parts. On the following day, the Employer and Local 600 executed an "Extension Agreement" which adopted in large part the contract previously entered into by American and Local 600, but which also contained sub- stantial modifications. Thus, the "Extension Agreement" set forth the Employer's promise to pay $25,000 in backpay to a large number of employees involved in the standards dispute,5 provided for the right 5 These parties also entered into a rider agreement which provided for the services of a consultant industrial engineer to make a study of standards on various production lines. 580 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD to change certain incentive operations, established new grievance pro- cedures, initiated wage date availability, canceled all efficiency repri- mands given prior to the Employer's purchase, and, subject to the foregoing, extended the contract of April 30, 1963 (which would have terminated on April 30, 1965), "in all its terms and conditions without change to April 30, 1966." On the same day that the Employer and Local 600 executed their "Extension Agreement," Local 600 and the Employer's predecessor, American, executed a "Mutual Release" which provided that as of December 17, 1964, their collective-bargaining agreement, dated April 30, 1963, "is hereby cancelled," and in which these parties further agreed to cancel, discharge, terminate, and waive all matters heretofore existing between them such as grievances, arbi- tration cases, and claims of any kind. As noted, Petitioners and Intervenor Independent Union contend, contrary to the Employer and Local 600, that the 1964 "Extension Agreement" is merely a premature extension of the 1963 contract, and that, as the instant petition was timely filed with respect to the expira- tion date of the 1963 contract, there is no contract which can be raised as a bar to an election. We do not agree. Under the premature-extension doctrine, a petition which is timely filed with respect to the expiration date of the original contract, i.e., not more than 90 nor less than 60 days from the terminal date thereof 6 is normally not barred by a premature extension of that contract. In the instant case, however, the Employer was not a party to the original contract between American and Local 600 but in fact entered into new obligations, separately undertaken, by executing with Local 600 a new contract containing different starting and terminal dates, running from December 19, 1964, to April 30, 1966. This contract is not an extension of the contract executed by the Employer's predecessor but constitutes the initial contract between the Employer and Local 600.7 Accordingly, as the Employer's current contract is not a premature extension of the 1963 contract but is a new contract which does not terminate until April 30, 1966, and as the instant petition was filed on February 23, 1965, more than 90 days before the terminal date of the new agreement, we find that the new contract constitutes a bar, and we shall dismiss the petition as untimely filed." [The Board dismissed the petition.] 8 Leonard Wholesale Meats, Inc, 136 NLRB 1000. 7 Stubnitz Greene Spring Corporation, 113 NLRB 226, 228; Cf. Mid-Continent Carton Corporation, 131 NLRB 423, 424. 8 In view of our dismissal of the petition, we find it unnecessary to reach or pass upon the question of whether Intervenor Independent Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation