General Motors Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 6, 1953

102 N.L.R.B. 1140 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

1140 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The UAW-CIO moved to dismiss the petition on the ground of con-
tract bar. That motion is hereby granted.
For the reasons stated in General Motors Corporation, Detroit
Transmission Division, 102 NLRB 1140, we hold that the May 1950
agreement is a bar to an election, in the absence of other considera-
tions, during its term. The Petitioner also contended that practices
within the automobile industry are not relevant here because the plant,
although subject to the national agreement, is not engaged in the manu-
facture either of automobiles or automotive parts 2 We find insuffi-
cient merit in this argument. The considerations which led the
Board to find the national General Motors agreement to be a bar
warrant holding•that it similarly precludes an election for any group
of employees subject to its terms, regardless of their specific work
assignments.
Accordingly, we shall dismiss the petition.
Order
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition herein be, and it hereby is,
dismissed.
a A. C. Spark Plug Division maintains and operates plants in Flint, Michigan , and Mil-
waukee , Wisconsin . The Milwaukee plant is engaged in the manufacture of navigation
computers and bombsights under contracts with the United States Government.
GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION , DETROIT TRANSMISSION DIVISION and
WILLIAM FORD , PETITIONER and INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED
AUTOMOBILE , AIRCRAFT & AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF
AMERICA, UAW-CIO AND ITS LOCAL No. 735. Case No. 7-RD-135.
February 6,1953
Decision and Order
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before Herbert C.
Kane, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hear-
ing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer (herein called General Motors) is engaged in
commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
2. The Peitioner, an employee of the Employer, asserts that the
Union is no longer the representative of certain of the Employer's em-
ployees as defined in Section 9 (a) of the Act.
The International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft & Agricul-
tural Implement Workers of America, UAW-CIO (herein called
UAW-CIO), a labor organization, was certified on February 24, 1944,
in Case No. 7-R-1588, as the exclusive bargaining representative of
the Employer's employees involved herein.
102 NLRB No. 115.
GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATIONS DETROIT TRANS. DIV. 1141
3. The alleged question concerning representation :
We must decide whether the 5-year contract of May 29, 1950, be-
tween General Motors and the Union constitutes a bar to the election
sought by the Petitioner.'
The Employer and the Union contend that this 5-year contract,
which expires on May 29, 1955, is a bar to the requested election, as
virtually the entire automotive industry is now operating under con-
tracts of similar duration.
On February 24, 1944, the Union became the exclusive bargaining
representative of the present tool-engineering employees who had
been excluded by stipulation from the production and maintenance
unit for which the Union had been certified as representative on Feb-
ruary 12, 1941, as the result of a consent election (29 NLRB 552).
According to the usual practices in cases of newly certified units,
General Motors and UAW-CIO, by memorandum of understanding
dated March 16, 1944, extended all the provisions, excepting wage and
seniority, of the then existing national agreement to the newly certified
unit. Upon completion of negotiations relating to local wages and
seniority, on July 11, 1945, these employees were subject to full cover-
age by the national agreement. Since then, they have continuously
been covered by all successive national agreements including that of
May 29, 1950, which is urged in bar.
The May 29, 1950, contract is the first 5-year agreement between
the parties. It contains a no-strike clause, a cost-of-living allowance
factor based on the Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumers' Price Index,
and an overall improvement factor. More than 21/2 years have elapsed
since the agreement became effective. This is the only factor which
might render the contract ineffective as a bar. As recently stated, the
Board's position is that "no contract of more than 2 years' duration
may serve as a bar to an election after the first 2 years, unless it is
shown that such longer agreements are customary in the industry." 2
In support of their contention that a 5-year term has become cus-
tomary in the industry, the Employer and UAW-CIO offered evidence
that, since General Motors and UAW-CIO executed the pioneering
5-year agreement, every major manufacturer in the automobile and
automotive parts industry has followed the long-term agreement pat-
tern, executing contracts for 5 or slightly less than 5 years 3 These
IIn resolving the issues of "contract -bar" in decertification cases, the Board applies
the same rules as have been, and still are, applied with respect to affirmative petitions for
investigation and certification of representatives . Snow and Nealley Company, 76 NLRB
390.
2 Union Starch and Refining Company, 100 NLRB 567.
'Thus General Motors , Packard Motor Car Co , and Studebaker have 5-year contracts ;
Hudson Motor Car Co , 5 years and 10 months ; Ford Motor Co., Kaiser -Fraser Corp., and
Willys -Overland Co., 4 years and 9 months ; Chrysler Corp., 4 years and 6 months ; and
Nash Kelvinator , 3 years and 11 months . All contracts expire in 1955.
250983-vol . 102-53-73
1142 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
contracts cover some 537,500 employees, of whom approximately 265,-
000 are General Motors employees. Under these circumstances, we
agree that a 5-year contract accords with the practices of a substantial
portion of the employers in the automobile industry.
The question remains whether under such circumstances 5 years is
a reasonable time during which to hold a contract to be a bar. When-
ever a contract is urged in bar, the Board must balance 2 separate, and
sometimes conflicting, interests : Stabilizing labor relations for the
duration of a contract secured through bona fide bargaining, and pro-
tecting the exercise by employees of full freedom of designation of
representatives of their own choosing. During the period when the
techniques and potentialities of collective bargaining were first being
slowly developed under the encouragement and protection of Federal
legislation, the Board laid greater emphasis upon the right of workers
to select their representative frequently than upon prolonged ad-
herence to a bargaining agent, once chosen. At that time, the Board
held that even 2-year contracts were "unreasonable" and would not
operate as a bar after their first year.4 In 1938, when only 1-year
contracts were bars for their duration, the Board did not believe that
"under the policies and provisions of the Act, employees should
be precluded from having the opportunity to select new representa-
tives for a period as long as 5 years." 5 In 1947 the Board held that
collective bargaining had "so emerged from a stage of trial and error"
that "the time has come when stability of industrial relations can
better be served, without unreasonably restricting employees in their
right to change representatives, by refusing to interfere with bar-
gaining relations secured by collective agreements of two years'
duration, . . . even in the presence of a contrary custom in the in-
dustry." 6 The Board also recognized that contracts of more than 2
years' duration might, under certain circumstances, be a bar for their
term,' but has not previously held that employees should be precluded
from changing representatives for a period longer than 3 years.
We have carefully analyzed the history of collective bargaining
between General Motors and UAW-CIO from 1937 to the present,8
4 Lewis Steel Products Corporation , 23 NLRB 793, and cases cited ( 1940).
6 Metro-Goldwyn -Mayer Studios , et al., 7 NLRB 662, 697. It was not then material that
the contract in question had been adopted by almost every employer in the industry.
Reed Roller Bit Company , 72 NLRB 92,7.
' The United States Finishing Company, 69 NLRB 575; California Walnut Growers
Association, 72 NLRB 756.
6 From 1937 to June 3, 1941, the contracts between General Motors and UAW-CIO
could be terminated by either party on 30 to 60 days ' notice On June 3, 1941 , they nego-
tiated their first contract for a definite term, to continue until April 28, 1942. On April
16, 1944, after another 1 -year contract, the parties executed an agreement to continue
until April 28, 1946, but providing for annual wage negotiations and granting either party
the privilege to reopen the issues of general wage increases or interplant differentials in
wage rates if such changes were allowable under the National Wage Stabilization policy.
Differences at the annual negotiating session led to a strike in 1946-1947, but eventually
AMERICAN TOOL WORKS OF HARTFORD, INCORPORATED 1143
including the trend toward agreements of longer duration in the auto-
motive industry, and cannot be unmindful of the salutory and stabiliz-
ing effect of that relationship. We believe that the time has arrived
when stability of labor relations can better be served, without unrea-
sonably restricting employees in their right to change representatives,
by holding as a bar collective-bargaining agreements even for 5 years'
duration when, as here, not only General Motors but also a substantial
part of the industry concerned is covered by contracts with a similar
term. In place of the former test predicated on "custom in the indus-
try," the test to be applied here determines reasonableness of contract
duration for contract-bar purposes on the basis of whether a sub-
stantial part of the industry is covered by contracts of a similar term .9
This test, in the Board's opinion, is more practicable, is in keeping
with present-day normal economic developments, and will better
effectuate the policies of the Act.
For the reasons stated above, having found the contract a bar to a
present determination of representatives, we shall dismiss the peti-
tion filed herein.
Order
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition filed herein be, and it hereby
is, dismissed.
resulted in the consummation of a 2-year contract , without a reopening clause, which con-
tained a cost -of-living allowance based on the BLS Consumers ' Price Index and an annual
improvement factor.
As Louis G. Seaton, labor relations director of General Motors, testified, "The successful
operation of that two-year agreement caused the parties to explore the possibility of even
a longer agreement in 1950," During the 1950 negotiations, General Motors proposed
giving a more adequate pension and insurance program in return for a 5-year contract
containing a no-strike clause and a cost-of-living escalator clause, and the Union accepted.
In 1950 General Motors negotiated some 100 different contracts with approximately 20
international unions , affiliates of both the CIO and AFL, covering about 325 ,000 em-
ployees ; all were 5-year contracts.
9In adopting this test, we are not passing on whether a contract of more than 5, years
could be, under any circumstances , of reasonable duration for contract -bar purposes.
AMERICAN TOOL WORKS OF HARTFORD, INCORPORATED and INTERNA-
TIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT & AGRICULTURAL
IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER. Case No.
IKC-2839. February 6, 1953
Supplemental Decision , Order, and Direction of Second Election
On August 20, 1952, pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Elec-
tion 1 issued by the Board on August 4, 1952, an election was conducted
among certain employees of the Employer under the direction and
Unpublished.
102 NLRB No. 95.