Litton Business Systems, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 28, 1972

199 N.L.R.B. 354 (N.L.R.B. 1972)

354 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Roytype, Division of Litton Business Systems, Inc. and
Roytype Employees' Union, Petitioner . Case 1-
RC-11898
September 28, 1972
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS JENKINS AND
KENNEDY
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of
the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a
hearing was held before Hearing Officer Norman
Zankel of the National Labor Relations Board. Fol-
lowing the close of the hearing the Regional Director
for Region I transferred this case to the Board for
decision. Thereafter, briefs were filed by the Employ-
er,' the Petitioner, and the Intervenor.2
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's
rulings made at the hearing and finds that they are
free from prejudicial error. They are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this proceeding, 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 parties stipulated, and we find, that the
Intervenor is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
At the hearing, the Interventor contested the sta-
tus of the Petitioner as a labor organization within the
meaning of the Act. The record reveals that Petitioner
was organized in June 1971 by Roytype employees.
During that month bylaws were adopted and officers
elected, funds were contributed by members, and a
petition seeking certification as representative of the
Employer's employees was filed? Further evidence
shows that Petitioner was established for the purpose
of bargaining collectively with the Employer on be-
half of the latter's employees and Petitioner's presi-
dent testified that it intended to do so in the event that
i Hereinafter also referred to as Roytype.
2 At the hearing, Royal Industrial Union , Local 937, United Automobile,
Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW) was
permitted to intervene on the basis of a collective-bargaining agreement with
the Employer covering the employees involved herein.
3 That petition, filed on June 30 , 1971, was administratively dismissed by
the Regional Director for Region I on August 19, 1971, as a consequence of
the issuance of a complaint alleging that the Employer had assisted Petitioner
in violation of Sec. 8(a)(1) and (2) of the Act Thereafter , the issues raised
by the complaint were resolved in a settlement agreement approved by the
Regional Director Compliance with the terms of that agreement was com-
pleted prior to the filing of the petition herein on December 20, 1971.
it was certified as their representative. ,
The applicable provision of Section 2(5) of the
Act defines a labor organization as "any organization
of any kind, or any agency or employee representa-
tion committee or plan, in which employees partic-
ipate and which exists for the purpose, in whole or in
part, of dealing with employers concerning griev-
ances , labor disputes, wages rates of pay, hours of
employment, or conditions of work." Clearly, Peti-
tioner exists for statutory purposes, although its pur-
poses have not yet come to fruition; and employees
have participated in its organization and subsequent
activities, although the latter have been limited by the
organization's lack of representation rights. Accord-
ingly, we find that Petitioner is a labor organization
within the meaning of the Act .4
3. No question affecting commerce exists con-
cerning the representation of certain employees of the
Employer within the meaning of Section 9(c)(1) and
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
The Petitioner filed the instant petition on De-
cember 20, 1971, seeking an election in a unit of Roy-
type production and maintenance employees repre-
sented by the Intervenor for over 20 years and cov-
ered by a series of collective-bargaining contracts
between the Intervenor and the Employer.5 In 1968
the Employer and the Intervenor executed a 3-year
collective-bargaining agreement which ran to Septem-
ber 1, 1971, subject to automatic renewal, absent 60
days' notice to modify or terminate. The Intervenor
served timely notice to terminate on June 18, 1971,
and negotiations for a new contract commenced a few
weeks later. When the petition herein was filed on
December 20, 1971, Intervenor and the Employer had
not yet reached agreement on a new contract. Al-
though, under the Board's ordinary rules of contract
bar, the petition would be considered to have been
timely filed, the Intervenor contends that it should be
dismissed as untimely on the ground that Executive
Order No. 11615 (freezing wages) precluded the nego-
tiating parties from full collective bargaining on eco-
nomic matters during the period August 15 through
November 13, 1971.
In its decision'in California Parts & Equipment6
4 See Comet Rice Mills Division Early California Industries Inc., 195 NLRB
No. 117, Butler Manufacturing Company, 167 NLRB 308.
5 All collective-bargaining contracts between the parties have encom-
passed a two-plant unit consisting of the West Hartford , Connecticut Roy-
type plant which manufactures typewriter ribbons, carbon paper , and related
items, and-2 miles distant-the Hartford , Connecticut , Royal Typewriter
plant which manufactures typewriters . Until 1966, the contracting parties
were the Intervenor and, depending on the changing corporate structure,
either Royal Typewriter Company, Inc., or Royal McBee Corporation. In
1966, following the acquisition of Royal McBee by Litton Industries, Roy-
type and Royal Typewriter were each made separate operating divisions of
Litton Business Systems, Inc Thereafter , the contracts between the parties
defined the "Company" as being "Royal Typewriter Company, Division of
Litton Business Systems, Inc. and Roytype , Division of Litton Business
Systems, Inc." As indicated above, the instant petition seeks representation
rights at the Roytype plant only
6 196 NLRB No 170.
199 NLRB No. 56
ROYTYPE, DIVISION OF LITTON 1 355
and West India Manufacturing & Service Co., Inc.,' the
Board held, in part, that "where bargaining during the
insulated period of a contract was disrupted by the
wage-priced freeze, petitions filed during the freeze
period before the bargaining parties had an uninter-
rupted 60-day bargaining period free of the wage
freeze restraints would be dismissed as untimely."8
Here, the bargaining parties' insulated period be-
gan on July 3, 1971. It appears from the record that
actual negotiations began about that time and contin-
ued at regular intervals thereafter. However, when the
August 15 wage freeze became effective, the parties
agreed that they should wait to see what happened
after the freeze terminated before reaching any agree-
ment on economic matters. To this end, they executed
an interim agreement which, inter alia, extended their
then current contract to November 12, 1971, or the
end of the freeze, whichever came first. Subsequently,
on October 28, 1971, that contract was further extend-
ed to January 14, 1972.9
The Employer, relying on Bowling Green Foods,
Inc.,10 contends that the petition was not untimely
under the principles set forth in West India and relat-
ed cases because the negotiating parties had a 5-week
period-after termination of the freeze-to bargain
free of the freeze-period uncertainties. We conclude,
however, that the Employer's reliance on Bowling
Green is misplaced. In the circumstances of that case,
the Board held that a petition filed December 28,
1971, was timely as the termination of the freeze some
6 weeks before had enabled the parties therein to
resume the negotiations which had been precluded or
clouded during the freeze period. But there the par-
ties' contract had expired on May 30, 1971, and, there-
7 195 NLRB No. 203
8 California Parts & Equipment, supra
9 On January 4, 1972, with negotiations continuing , the prior contract was
further extended to at least February 3, 1972, with provision for termination
thereafter by either party on 10 days' notice. Full agreement on a new
contract was reached on February 11, 1972.
1s 196 NLRB No. 111.
fore, the insulated period to which they were entitled
was not in any way disrupted by the wage-price
freeze. Moreover, the parties had an additional 11-
week period, subsequent to their contract's expiration,
to continue negotiations before the freeze was imple-
mented. Thus, as there had been both a 60-day unin-
terrupted bargaining period prior to the freeze and a
reasonable period for negotiations after the freeze's
termination, the Board found that the rationale of
West India and related cases was inapplicable and,
consequently, held the petition to have been timely
filed.
The circumstances herein are more analagous to
those extant in California Parts, cited above, and we
find the rationale of that case to be applicable to the
issue before us. There, as here, the insulated period
was disrupted by the promulgation of the wage-price
freeze and, as the parties thereby were not afforded an
effective 60-day period in which to bargain prior to
their contract's expiration, they were found to be enti-
tled to an "uninterrupted 60-day bargaining period"
subsequent to the end of the freeze. Unlike the present
case, California Parts involved a petition that was filed
during-rather than after-the freeze period. But, we
do not find this distinction meaningful as in neither
case had the parties been afforded an uninterrupted
60-day bargaining period as of the dates the respective
petitions were filed.
Accordingly, and for the reasons set forth in the
West India and California Parts cases, we shall dismiss
the petition as untimely."
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the petition filed herein
be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
11 In view of our finding that the petition was not timely filed , we need not,
and do not, make findings with respect to the other issues raised by the
parties.