Levi Strauss & Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsJun 18, 1975

218 N.L.R.B. 625 (N.L.R.B. 1975)

LEVI STRAUSS & CO. 625 Levi Strauss & Co. and Atomic Lodge 480 of the International Association of Machinists and Aero- space Workers, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case 10- RC-10145 June 18, 1975 DECISION ON REVIEW AND ORDER BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND KENNEDY On January 27, 1975, the Regional Director for Region 10 issued a Decision and Direction of Election in the above-entitled proceeding in which he directed an election in the Petitioner's requested unit of sewing machine mechanics employed by the Employer at its Knoxville, Tennessee, facility. Thereafter, in accordance with Section 102.67 of the National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regula- tions, Series 8, as amended, the Employer filed a timely request for review of the Regional Director's decision, contending, inter alia, that the Regional Director erred in failing to find that the instant petition is barred by a collective-bargaining agree- ment between the Employer and the United Gar- ment Workers of America, Local 392, AFL-CIO (hereinafter referred to as the Garment Workers). By telegraphic order dated March 13, 1975, the National Labor Relations Board granted the request for review with respect to the contract-bar issue and stayed the election pending decision on review. Thereafter, the Employer filed a brief on review. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the entire record in this proceeding, including the Employer's brief on re- view, with respect to the issue under review, and makes the following findings: The Employer is engaged in the manufacture of wearing apparel at its Knoxville, Tennessee, location where it employs some 1,500-1,800 employees, including the approximately 20 sewing machine mechanics involved herein. The Employer has had collective-bargaining relations with the Local and/or the International since 1953. The contract urged as a bar (herein referred to as the 1972 agreement) was executed on August 22, 1972, and was effective from August 15, 1972, to October 15, 1974. The petition herein was filed on September 5, 1974, within the 60-day insulated period. The Petitioner contends the 1972 agreement 1 Sewing machine mechanics are among the approximate 200 "indirect employees ," " i.e., production support employees who are paid on an hourly basis; whereas the "direct" employees , also called production workers, are 218 NLRB No. 103 is not a bar in that it does not cover the sewing machine mechanics sought and the terms of the agreement have never been applied to them. The recognition clause of the 1972 agreement expressly states: The Company recognizes the Union as the exclusive collective bargaining agent of the employees, constituting a bargaining unit of all production and maintenance employees, includ- ing mechanics of the Company, excluding office, clerical employees, watchmen and supervisory employees. The Regional Director found, and we agree, that the "mechanics" referred to in the recognition clause are the sewing machine mechanics sought by Petitioner herein. Nevertheless, the Regional Director failed to fmd the contract to be a bar, relying essentially on the fact that it lacked specific wage rates for the sewing machine mechanics sought. Contrary 'to the Regional Director, we fmd in the circumstances herein that the 1972 agreement con- tains substantial terms and conditions of employ- ment with respect to the sewing machine mechanics, as well as the other unit employees, and constitutes a bar to the petition. Thus, without differentiating between any of the classifications included in the bargaining unit, the 1972 agreement contains provi- sions covering hours of work, insurance, disability benefits, vacations, holidays, adjustment of disputes, arbitration, probation period, and checkoff, among others. Further, as the Regional Director found, the record discloses that ,sewing machine mechanics and other "indirect employees" enjoy the same fringe benefits spelled out in the 1972 agreement. The 1972 agreement sets forth the base rates for four separate job grades of production operators but does not specify rates for any of the Employer's production support employees. However, the record discloses that in the 1972 negotiations ' wages for indirect employees were a subject of bargaining. The parties orally agreed to continue the merit review program for the indirect employees, as existed in the past, and to give such employees "an increase generally in relationship to the direct workers." As a result of those negotiations it was agreed to give all the indirect employees, at the date of the general increase for production operators, an increase of 10 cents per hour. Additionally, the record discloses that in August 1973, when the parties had further discussions resulting in an increase from four to six job grades for production operators, the parties those paid on an incentive or piece rate method and are mainly sewing machine operators. 626 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD agreed to an average increase of 18 cents per hour for those workers (rather than the 10' cents provided for in the agreement),LL and agreed to a 15-cents-per-hour general increase for all indirect employees, including the sewing machine mechanics.2 Based on the foregoing and the record as a whole, it is clear that the sewing machine mechanics sought here are encompassed within the unit description in the recognition clause of the 1972 agreement; are subject to the provisions of that agreement and enjoy the fringe benefits therein; have been represented in negotiations-regarding wage increases for the indirect employees; and have received such increases, albeit their specific wage rates were not heretofore reduced to writing.3 In these circumstances, we conclude that the 1972 agreement embodied substantial terms and conditions of employment with respect to the sewing machine mechanics and provided the requisite degree of labor relations stability contemplated by the Act .4 Accordingly, we find that the 1972 agreement constitutes a bar to the petition herein and we shall therefore dismiss the petition. ORDER It is hereby ordered that the petition filed herein be, and it hereby is, dismissed. MEMBER KENNEDY, concurring: I agree with my colleagues that the petition herein should be dismissed. It is clear that the sewing machine mechanics have been a part of the plant- wide unit represented by the Intervenor. While the wages of , the sewing machine mechanics were not established by the written contract covering this unit, other provisions of the contract relating to fringe benefits and other working conditions have been 2 In subsequent negotiations resulting in the current agreement winch became effective October 26, 1974, and runs until October 24, 1977, specific wage rates and wage progression rates for the Employer's job classifications including mechanics are expressly spelled out in the agreement. 3 In view of these uncoatroverted facts, testimony that some of the applied to the sewing machine mechanics. At the hearing the parties entered into the following stipulation: (1) Should it be found that the 1972 agreement between the United Garment Workers and Levi Strauss & Company with respect to the Knoxville facility (Exhibit 2) was applicable to the mechan- ics, then in such case the Petitioner does not seek a severance of the mechanics from the plantwide group regardless of whether it is found that the 1972 agreement, by reason of its terms, consti- tutes a bar to these proceedings and the Petitioner asks that in such case that its petition be dismissed or that it be granted leave to withdraw its petition. (2) Should it be found that the 1972 agreement between the United Garment Workers and Levi Strauss & Company with respect to the Knoxville facility (Exhibit 2) was not applicable to the mechanics, then the parties agree that the unit involved herein, that is the unit proposed by the petition filed by the machinists union, is appropri- ate for the purposes of bargaining. . From the foregoing stipulation, it appears that the Petitioner does not wish to proceed with its petition on the basis of severance from the established bargaining unit. I would grant Petitioner's request that its petition be dismissed under the circumstances here presented. I find it unnecessary to reach the issue as to whether the fact that the sewing machine mechanics' wages were established by oral agreement removes the contract as a bar to a determination of their representation. mechanics were told they were not covered by the contract or that none of the mechanics belonged to the Union does not warrant a contrary result herein. 4 Solar Manufacturing Company, 110 NLRB 1188 (1954).