General Electric Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 16, 1952

99 N.L.R.B. 155 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY 155
and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of
the Act, and thereby has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
7. During August 1950, by requesting of Paul Crawford a written statement
asserting his loyalty to KWKH, his desire to continue working for KWKH, and
his intention of voting against the Union, so that Robertson could give it to
Respondent's president and general manager, Respondent interfered with, re-
strained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section
7 of the Act, and thereby has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
S. During September 1950, by interrogating Vendex F. Marshall as to his
sentiments towards the Union and by requesting of him a written statement that
Marshall would take no part in union activities, while threatening the jobs
of the union leaders, Respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its
employees in the exercise'of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, and there-
by has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning
of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
9. During August 1950, by interrogating Dan Sorkin as to his union mem-
bership, and by arranging for automatic wage increases for him and assuring
him that he did not need the Union to obtain those or other increases, Respon-
dent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, and thereby has engaged in and is
engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the
Act.
10. By discriminating in regard to the, hire and tenure of employment of Paul
Crawford and Vendex F. Marshall, thereby discouraging membership in Inter-
national Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL, the Respondent has engaged
in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8
(a) (3) of the Act.
11. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication in this volume.]
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY ( TIFFIN PLANT OF THE FRACTIONAL
HORSEPOWER MOTOR DEPARTMENT)' and INTERNATIONAL UNION OF
ELECTRICAL , RADIO & MACHINE WORKERS , CIO1 PETITIONER
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY ( NILES GLASS WORKS, LAMP DIVISION)'
and INTERNATIONAL UNION OF ELECTRICAL , RADIO & MACHINE
WORKERS, CIO, PETITIONER . Cases Nos. 8-RC-1524 and 8-RC-1533.
May 16, 1952
Decision and Order
Upon petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before Philip Fusco,
hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are
free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
The petition and other formal papers were amended at the hearing to show the correct
name of the Employer.
99 NLRB No. 35.
156 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent employees of
the Employer.
3. The Petitioner seeks certification as the bargaining representa-
tive of employees in production and maintenance units at the Em-
ployer's Tiffin plant and Niles Glass Works. The Intervenor, United
Electrical Radio & Machine Workers of America (UE), and its Locals
Nos. 732 and 751, contends that its national agreement with the Em-
ployer, which is terminable upon 90 days' notice prior to September
15, 1952, is a bar to elections in these cases. The Petitioner and the
Employer contend, however, that the agreement contains specific pro-
visions rendering the contract inoperative as a bar to elections during
its term. The Petitioner and the Employer base this contention upon
the language of the recognition and termination clauses of the agree-
ment, which read as follows :
UNION RECOGNITION
1. The Company agrees to recognize the Union on behalf of and
in conjunction with its Locals for those bargaining units of Com-
pany employees for which the Union or any of its locals, through
National Labor Relations Board certifications, is and continues to
be designated as the exclusive collective bargaining representative
of employees within such units for the purpose of collective bar-
gaining in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment
and other conditions of employment.
2. Where the Union or any of its Locals through National
Labor Relations Board certifications has been designated as the
exclusive collective bargaining representative for any additional
bargaining units of Company employees, such certified repre-
sentative shall be recognized as provided above. [Emphasis
supplied.]
TERMINATION
This Agreement shall, as to the Company, and recognized
Union and recognized UE locals, and each bargaining unit so rep-
resented, as provided in this Agreement, continue in full force
and effect until the 15th day of September 1952, and from year
to year thereafter unless not later than 90 days prior to such date
of anniversary thereof either the Company or the Union shall
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY 157
notify the other in writing of its intention to terminate the Agree-
ment upon such date or anniversary date. [Emphasis supplied.]
The contention of the Petitioner and the Employer, which is sup-
ported by a general rule of contract interpretation ,2 is that the words
`.recognized" in the termination clause must be read in connection with
the words "and continues to be" in the recognition clause. If the ter-
mination clause is so read, the contract terminates as to a bargaining
unit at the time that the Intervenor or one of its locals loses its recog-
nized status as a result of no longer continuing, through Board certi-
fications , to be designated as the exclusive bargaining representative
of employees in the unit. It is the further contention of the Petitioner
and the Employer that this language should be construed to mean that
the contract is no bar to the filing and processing of a rival petition by
the Board.
The Petitioner and the Employer cite a number of Board decisions
in which the Board has held inoperative as bars, contracts which were
construed to provide for the certification of another representative
during their terms.3 However, in those cases the provision for certi-
fication of another representative were more clearly stated; in two of
the cited cases a petition had been filed prior to the time the contract
was executed; 4 and in all but two 5 of the cases cited the evidence
showed the existence of rival organizing campaigns at the time the
contracts were executed. For these reasons we do not believe that the
cases relied upon by the Petitioner and the Employer provide a basis
for disposition of this case. Here it appears not only that the parties
had in mind no specific petition, either filed or to be filed with the
Board , as the subject of the alleged reopening provision, but also that
the language used is not such as in our opinion could reasonably be
construed as removing the contract as- a bar to the processing of a
petition by a rival labor organization.
In view of the public interest in the maintenance of industrial
stability,6 we do not believe it too much to require that a party to a
contract who wishes to waive or avoid the Board's contract bar doc-
trine should be required to obtain from the other party approval of
23 Williston , Contracts § 618 (Rev. Ed . 1936 ) ; Restatement , Contracts $ 235 (c)
(1932).
s Libby, McNeil & Libby, 64 NLRB 30; Willys Overland Motors , Inc., 35 NLRB 549;
The Steel Storage File Company , 27 NLRB 210 ; Monument Mills, 10 NLRB 347; Farr
Alpaca Company , Inc., 9 NLRB 1208; Consolidated Aircraft Corporation , 7 NLRB 1061.
4 Wiillys Overland Motors, Inc ., supra; The Steel Storage Company, supra.
5 Farr Alpaca Company, Inc ., supra; Consolidated Aircraft Corporation , supra. In the
Consolidated Aircraft case the members of the contracting union had voted to affiliate with
the petitioner and only the employer asserted the contract as a bar. Compare the Farr
Alpaca case with Columbia River Salmon and Tuna Packers Assn., 91 , NLRB 1424, where
the Board refused to construe a provision making the agreement effective in all plants
where the union- had a majority of the employees as making the union 's majority, repre-
sentative status depend upon the daily fluctuations of its membership.
0 Cf Reed Roller Bit Company, 72 NLRB 927
158 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
contractual provisions which do so in clear and unmistakable lan-
guage.7 Assuming, as mentioned above, that the Intervenor' s agree-
ment with the Employer is terminable upon the certification of
another representative, we find nothing in the words "and continues
to be" which would justify a construction of the recognition and
termination clauses of the agreement as a general waiver of the Board's
contract bar doctrine. As suggested by the Intervenor, those words
can more reasonably be given effect and construed as relieving the
Employer of contractual liability in the event that the Board should
find upon application of its own contract bar principles that the con-
tract was rendered inoperative as a bar and another union certified
as the bargaining representative. Accordingly, we find the Inter-
venor's contract with the Employer to be a bar to elections in these
cases , and we shall dismiss the petitions filed herein.
Order
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petitions filed herein be, and they
hereby are, dismissed.
CHAIRMAN HERZOG and MEMBER STYLES took no part in the consid-
eration of the above Decision and Order.
• '.It is a rule of contract interpretation that contracts or agreements affecting the public
interest are to be construed liberally in favor of the public 3 Williston , Contracts § 626
(Rev. ed , 1936 ) ; Restatement , contracts § 236 (e ) ( 1932 ) Cf Otis Elevator Company,
97 NLRB 786 ; The Iron Fireman Manufacturing Company, 69 NLRB 19 ; cf. also Lever
Brothers Company, 96 NLRB 448; Columbia River Salmon and Tuna Packers' Assn.,
91 NLRB 1424.
FEIN'S TIN CAN CO., INC., AND ATLAS CAN CORPORATION and, UNITED
WIRE AND METAL WORKERS UNION, LOCAL 24368, AFL, PETITIONER.
Case No. 9-RC-4200. May 16, 1952
Decision and Direction of Election
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Lewis Moore, hearing officer.
The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from preju-
dicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Murdock].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employers are engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employers.
99 NLRB No. 32