General Dynamics Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 15, 1969

175 N.L.R.B. 1035 (N.L.R.B. 1969)

GENERAL DYNAMICS CORP
General Dynamics Corporation , Convair Division' and
Building Material & Dump Truck Drivers, Local
36, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America,
Petitioner.' Case 21-RC-11101
May 15, 1969
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF
ELECTION
By CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS
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 Hearing Officer Claude R.
Marston. The Employer and the Intervenor,
Engineers and Architects Association, San Diego
Chapter,' filed briefs.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
Act, the National Labor Relations Board has
delegated its powers in connection with this case to
a three-member panel.
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 organizations' involved claim to
represent certain employees of the Employer.
3. The Petitioner filed the instant petition on
December 26, 1968, wherein it seeks to represent a
unit of technical employees. There is no dispute as
to the unit sought, which is the same as that
presently covered by a collective-bargaining
agreement executed by the Employer and the EAA.
However, the Employer filed a Motion to Withdraw
Notice of Hearing and to Dismiss. In this motion,
which the Regional Director had denied and the
Hearing Officer reconsidered and referred to the
Board, the Employer argues` that (1) the Petitioner's
showing of interest, based on authorization cards, is
stale; (2) the Petitioner's showing of interest is
inadequate, certain authorization cards having been
revoked; (3) the entertaining of the instant petition
when, just 8 days before, an identical petition filed
in Case 21-RC-11077 had been withdrawn by
Petitioner, violates "the dictates of due process and
the concepts of fair hearing" and does not effectuate
the policies of the Act "in the absence of either a
renewed showing of interest or some demonstration
'The Employer' s name appears in the caption as amended at the hearing.
'The Petitioner's name appears in the caption as amended at the hearing.
'Engineers and Architects Association , San Diego Chapter, hereinafter
referred to as EAA, was permitted to intervene on the basis of its current
contractual interest in the employees involved herein
'As the record and briefs , in our opinion , adequately present the issues
and the positions of the parties, the request of the Employer for oral
argument is hereby denied
1035
of a compelling reason why the Petitioner did not
proceed with its initial Petition"; and (4) the
Petitioner is not the real party in interest, i.e., it is
"fronting" for another labor organization.
We deny the motion for the following reasons: It
it well established that the showing of interest is an
administrative matter not subject to litigation.' We
note, however, that the showing is not subject to
attack on the ground that the cards on which it is
based have been revoked or withdrawn. Such an
attack has no bearing on the validity of the original
showing but merely raises the question as to whether
particular employees have changed their minds
about union representation. That question can best
be resolved on the basis of an election by secret
ballot.' Moreover, we are satisfied that the
Petitioner's showing of interest, based chiefly on
authorization cards previously submitted in support
of its prior petition filed on November 22, 1968, is
not stale.' We are administratively satisfied that the
Petitioner has an adequate current showing of
interest.
The Petitioner was permitted by Regional
Director to withdraw its petition in Case
21-RC-11077 after the hearing thereon began, and
the Petitioner filed the petition herein within a short
period of time thereafter. We find no substantial
prejudice to the Employer because it expended time
and effort on the prior hearing. Moreover, we find
that the Regional Director did not abuse his
discretion in permitting the withdrawal of the prior
petition.' °
As to the contention that the Petitioner is
"fronting" for another labor organization,
Teamsters Local 986, the record shows that Local
36, the Petitioner herein, filed the instant petition
'The record reveals that the Petitioner represents employees for the
purpose of collective- bargaining for wages , hours, and other conditions of
employment and is presently a party to collective-bargaining agreements
with various employers which agreements embody such matters. The
record further reveals that the Petitioner has approximately 2200 members
who have paid initiation fees, who presently pay dues and who have the
right to participate in union affairs. Accordingly, we find that the
Petitioner is a labor organization within the meaning of Sec 2(5) of the
Act. Mayfair Industries , Incorporated, 126 NLRB 223. The parties
stipulated that EAA is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act
and we so rind
'In its brief to the Board EAA has joined the Employer in these
arguments.
'0 D Jennings & Company, 68 NLRB 516
'Plains Cooperative Oil Mill, 123 NLRB 1709, 1711, Vent Control, Inc.
of Ohio, Subsidiary of Air Control Products. Inc, 126 NLRB 1134, 1135;
Reliable Mailing Service Company, 113 NLRB 1263, fn 1; East Coast
Fisheries, Inc., 97 NLRB 1261, fn. 1 Cf Allied Chemical Corporation
National Analine Division , 165 NLRB No. 23, fn. 2
'Knox Glass Bottle Company, 101 NLRB 36, fn 1; The Cleveland Cliffs
Iron Company, 117 NLRB 668.
"Carnation Company of Texas, 78 NLRB 519, fn. 1, Wyman-Gordon
Company, Ingalls Shepard Division , 117 NLRB 75, fn. 3 There is no
indication that the Regional Director allowed the withdrawal of the
petition in Case 21-RC-11077 with prej udice to the filing of a subsequent
petition. Such action is in accordance with the instructions contained in
Section 11110.2 of the National Labor Relations Board Field Manual.
175 NLRB No. 155
1036 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and that Local 36 Petitioner herein, filed the instant
petition and that Local 36 and not Local 986
participated' in the hearing. Moreover, it is the
Petitioner's name that will appear on the ballot to
be used in the election, and if the Petitioner wins, it
alone will be certified and the Employer will have
the right to refuse to recognize any other labor
organizations claiming to represent its employees in
the unit for which the Petitioner is certified."
The Employer and EAA also contend that the
current contract, effective from November 15, 1965,
until December 9, 1970, should be held to be a oar
to the instant petition, which was filed more than 3
years after its effective date, on grounds that the
duration of the agreement, arrived at through
negotiations conducted in good faith, was based on
sound economic considerations; and that the
Employer agreed to certain economic benefits to be
accorded the unit employees in exchange for the
5-year agreement. The Employer further submitted
evidence' z that contracts with terms longer than 3
years are now common with it and others engaged
in defense projects, contending that this industry
should be treated differently from others because a
substantial part of it is covered by long-term
collective-bargaining agreements. We find no merit
in these contentions. The evidence and arguments
presented here are substantially the same as those
presented in a recent case involving another division
of the Employer's operation." As we pointed out in
that case, the Board stated in Pacific Coast
Association of Pulp and Paper Manufacturers, 121
NLRB 990, 993, that
. one of the principal objectives of the contract
bar policy is to provide employees the opportunity
to select- representatives at reasonable and
predictable intervals, [and] we [therefore] believe
that the ends served by the "substantial part of
the industry" test for long-term contracts do not
justify the sacrifice of predictability which that
test necessarily entails.
We further pointed out in that case that in General
Cable Corporation, 139 NLRB 1123, 1125, the
Board had concluded that
.... if, as some have urged, we were at present to
cause further-.delay by expanding the bar period
to more than 3 years, stability of industrial
relations would in our judgment be so heavily
weighted against employee freedom of choice as
to create an inequitable imbalance.
The above stated views are equally applicable in this
case.
"Morrison Turning Company , Inc, 83 NLRB 687. In these
circumstances , we find the Hearing Officer properly rejected the
Employer's offer of proof to the effect that Teamsters Local 986 is in fact
the labor organization seeking to represent the employees involved herein
"Much of this evidence was presented in General Dynamics
Corporation, Pomona Division , 21-RC-10973, and was admitted in this
proceeding by stipulation of the parties (See General Dynamics
Corporation , Pomona Division , 175 NLRB No 154).
"General Dynamics Corporation, Pomona Division, supra
Accordingly, treating the current agreement as if
it were one for a fixed term of 3 years, and the
evidence not showing a timely extension of that
agreement, we find that it is not a bar to'an election
and that the petition was timely filed on December
26, 1968.' °
We therefore find that a question affecting
commerce exists concerning the representation of
employees of the Employer within the meaning of
Section 9(c)(1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. We find that the unit appropriate for the
purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning
of Section 9(b) of the Act consists of:
All employees of the Employer located in San
Diego, California, including the Kearny Mesa
Plant, the Lindbergh Field Plant, Air Force Plant
19 in the following classifications:
Architectural Draftsman, Senior, Chemical
Analyst, Design Draftsman, Draftsman, Senior,
Draftsman, Engineering Aide, Engineering
Assistant, Engineering Computer Technician,
Senior, Engineering Draftsman, Senior,
Engineering Draftsman, Engineering Electronics
Technician, Senior, Engineering Electronics,
Technician, Engineering Laboratory Technician,
Senior, Engineering Liaison Man, Engineering
Research and Development Technician,
Engineering Standards Development Technician,
Leadman - Technical, Loftsman, Senior,
Loftsman, Manufacturing Development
Technician, Metallurgical Analyst, Numerical
Control Machining Programmer, Senior,
Numerical Control Machining Programmer,
Production Engineering Planner, Senior,
Production Engineering Planner, Radiographer,
Radiographic Assistant, Research Test
Laboratory Technician, Technical Assistant,
Technical Illustrator, Senior, Technical
Illustrator, Technical Writer, Test Laboratory
Technician, Tool Designer, Senior, Tool Designer,
Trainee, Vibration Laboratory Technician,
Weight Computer.
Excluding: All employees at office-site bases
outside of San Diego County, California and
excluding professional, management,
administrative, confidential and all classifications
of employees excluded by law, office clerical
employees and those classifications who are
employed in any of the following sections,
functions, or departments of the Company,
wherever they may exist:
The offices of the Company general manger,
vice presidents, Directors and Program Managers,
Planning Analysis; Community Relations;
Division Counsel; Contracts and Commercial
Sales; Product Development and Service;
Industrial Relations and Security; Division
"Pacific Coast Association of Pulp and Paper Manufacturers, supra,
General Cable Corporation, supra
GENERAL DYNAMICS CORP.
Systems; Controller's Offices; Budgets, Financial
Control, Estimating and Forecasting, Revenue
Management, Subcontract Audit and Internal
Audit, Program Planning and Control; Industrial
Graphics and Proposals; Motion Pictures;
Proposal Development and Special Projects;
Methods Engineering, Factory Methods and
Work Measurement; Technical Director and
Advanced Studies; Factory Manager's Office; and
Centaur Finance, Scheduling and Administration
and Engineering Administrative Services.
[Direction of Election's omitted from publication.]
1037
"In order to assure that all eligible voters may have the opportunity to
be informed of the issues in the exercise of their statutory right to vote, all
parties to the election should have access to a list of voters and their
addresses which may be used to communicate with them Excelsior
Underwear Inc, 156 NLRB 1236, N L.R B v. Wyman-Gordon
Company, 394 U.S 759. Accordingly, it is hereby directed that an election
eligibility list, containing the names and addresses of all the eligible voters,
must be filed by the Employer with the Regional Director for Region 21
within 7 days of the date of this Decision and Direction of Election. The
Regional Director shall make the list available to all parties to the
election . No extension of time to file this list shall be granted by the
Regional Director except in extraordinary circumstances Failure to
comply with this requirement shall be grounds for setting aside the election
whenever proper objections are filed