General Dynamics Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 20, 1970

184 N.L.R.B. 553 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

GENERAL DYNAMICS CORPORATION
General Dynamics Corporation , Pomona Division
and Miscellaneous Warehousemen , Drivers &
Helpers , Local 986 , International Brotherhood of
Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Help-
ers of America , Petitioner . Case 21-RC-10973
July 20, 1970
ORDER
On May 13, 1970, the National Labor Relations
Board issued an Order in the above-entitled
proceeding denying a Motion To Reconsider the
Decision and Certification of Representative issued
by the Board on March 5, 1970, filed by the Em-
ployer and supported by the Chamber of Com-
merce of the United States. Thereafter, the Em-
ployer submitted a letter and a supplement to its
motion to reconsider and the Chamber of Com-
merce submitted a letter, in which they again urge
the Board to find that the Petitioner is the succes-
sor to EAA, and that the collective-bargaining
agreement between the Employer and EAA is bind-
ing on the Petitioner.' They request oral argument
on these issues. The Chamber of Commerce also
requests the Board to consolidate this case with
New England Telephone and Telegraph Company,
Cases 1- R C-10718, et seq.
We are denying the motion for reconsideration
and for oral argument because we believe that the
issues sought to be raised fall within the ambit of
established Board precedent. While we would not
normally decide questions of the scope of bargain-
ing obligations in a representation case, and while
we believe that the proper interpretation of the Act
has already been alluded to in our original decision
on objections herein, the motions to reconsider
have led us to issue this further clarification of in-
terpretations which we had thought were already
clear.
In American Seating Co., 106 NLRB 250 (1953),
we reviewed and explained the reasons which led
the Board to adopt the rule that a contract of un-
reasonable duration is not a bar to a new deter-
mination of representative. We there found that the
' Nothing is presented in support of the Employer's additional conten-
tion that the Petitioner is identical with and the alterego of EAA which has
not previously been considered by the Board
553
same reasons impelled a conclusion that beyond
such reasonable period, a contract may not bar full
statutory collective bargaining following a timely
filed petition and certification of a new collective-
bargaining representative. In view of that
established principle, we overruled the objection
here to the Petitioner's statements which accurately
reflected the operation of that principle. If the in-
cumbent union is disadvantaged in an election held
during the term of a contract of unreasonable dura-
tion, it is disadvantaged only because it voluntarily
chose to enter into such an agreement knowing that
it would not bar an election at our established ap-
propriate intervals. The employees in this case are
now entitled, in accordance with American Seating,
to full statutory representation by the union which
has been certified as a result of these proceedings.
It has been urged that reconsideration is war-
ranted because of an alleged parallel between this
type of case and the employer-successorship cases
which we have recently decided. We are not con-
vinced that there is a direct parallel. Furthermore,
it is our practice not to prejudge factual situations
which have not yet come before us. Whether a suc-
cessor-employer would be precluded from raising a
question concerning representation if he acquired
the business after 3 years had elapsed from the ex-
ecution date of his predecessor's contract or
whether he would have a right to demand fresh bar-
gaining if he acquired the business at such a time
are issues which have not yet been presented to us
for decision. Those kinds of cases might, arguably
at least, be considered as parallels to American
Seating or to this case, but this case is not, in our
judgment, parallel to those successorship cases
which we have thus far decided.
In these circumstances, it would serve no purpose
to consolidate this case with New England
Telephone and Telegraph Company, supra.
Accordingly,
It is hereby ordered that the requests contained
in the Employer's letter dated May 26, 1970, and
its supplement to its motion to reconsider, and in
the letter of the Chamber of Commerce of the
United States dated June 4, 1970, insofar as they
relate to this case be, and they hereby are, denied.
184 NLRB No. 71