RPM Products, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 7, 1975

217 N.L.R.B. 855 (N.L.R.B. 1975)

RPM PRODUCTS, INC., RUNGE DIV. 855
RPM Products , Inc., Runge Division and Interna-
tional Union, United Automobile , Aerospace and
Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW,
Petitioner. Case 7-RC-12660
May 7, 1975
DECISION ON REVIEW AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS JENKINS, KENNEDY, AND PENELLO
On November 14, 1974, the Regional Director for
Region 7 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 produc-
tion and maintenance employees at the Employer's 381
Melvin Avenue, Croswell, Michigan, facility, including
truckdrivers, rejecting the Employer's contention that
its existing contract with an employee committee' op-
erates as a bar to the petition. Thereafter, the Em-
ployer, in accordance with Section 102.67 of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations,
Series 8, as amended, filed a timely request for review
of the Regional Director's decision on the grounds that,
in concluding that no contract bar exists, he made find-
ings of fact which are clearly erroneous and departed
from officially reported precedent.
On December 13, 1974, by telegraphic order, the
request for review was granted and the election stayed
pending decision on review.
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 considered the entire record in this
case with respect to the issue under review and finds
that no question affecting commerce exists concerning
the representation of certain employees of the Em-
ployer within the meaning of Sections 9(c)(1) and 2(6)
and (7) of the Act, for the following reasons:
The Employer contends that the Regional Director
erred in finding that the existing agreement between it
and the committee is completely silent as to the em-
ployees intended to be covered and that no ambiguity
exists which can be resolved by parole evidence. It
argues in effect that (1) the agreement, together with
the employee handbook which was an'tegral part
thereof, and the reference in the agreement to an at-
tached schedule as an example of how the computation
of 6-month cost-of-living increases is formulated, when
viewed as a whole, indicate that the unit covered com-
prises all or almost all employees of the Employer, and
(2) testimony in the record makes clear that the con-
tract was intended to encompass basically a production
and maintenance unit, excluding truckdrivers, office
I Referred to herein as the committee As no appearance was made on its
behalf, the Regional Director identified it for purposes of this proceeding as
RPM Products, Inc., Employee Committee.
clerical employees, and management employees.
The agreement advanced as a bar to the instant peti-
tion on its face indicates it was executed on December
27, 1973, to be effective January 1, 1974, until Decem-
ber'31, 1976. The agreement, an informal document
less than two pages long, is signed by the Employer and
three employee representatives. It' sets forth a number
of provisions,' and states that the employee handbook
is considered an integral part of the agreement, as well
as all benefits and conditions of employment existing
prior to January 1, 1974. The Employer introduced in
evidence a 6-month schedule dated July 1, 1974, prov-
iding a 20-cent cost-of-living increase and listing a
graduation scale of pay rates for a number of "factory"
job classifications.' There was testimony that a similar
schedule was prepared for the cost-of-living increases
granted on January 1, 1974, and that "it was under-
stood to be part of the contract." The employee hand-
book, also introduced in evidence, sets forth in some
detail personal conduct and company rules, employee
benefits, and other general policy.
Contrary to the Regional Director, we believe that,
because the agreement between the Employer and the
committee on its face appears to have general applica-
tion, sufficient ambiguity exists as to the scope of the
unit covered to justify resort to parole evidence.' And
we view as adequate support for a finding that the
agreement covers basically a production and mainte-
nance unit the testimony that the 6-month listings of
employee classifications and their current graduation
scale of pay rates, adjusted for cost-of-living increases,
are considered "an integral part of the agreement."
Therefore, we conclude that the agreement operates as
a bar to the instant petition for a unit of production and
maintenance emloyees.5
Accordingly, we shall dismiss the petition.
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the petition herein be, and
it hereby is, dismissed.
2 The provisions covered cost-of-living increases to be added to the hourly
rate every 6 months-with reference to an "attached schedule as an example
of how the computation is formulated", a raise-15-cent hourly rate in-
crease each year for the next 3 years, holdiay pay-"if snowed in", pension
plan-retirement plan, personal days off; life insurance; 4 weeks' vacation;
and birthday off with pay
3 The listed classifications are. tool and die maker, setup, maintenance,
roll mill trainee, tool and die trainee, inspector, layout inspector, shipping
and receiver, general production/male and female, Heliark welding, ark
welding, and lamtor Contrary to the Regional Director, we believe the
testimony of Committee Member Storm clearly indicates that tool and die
makers were represented by the committee and that they were included in
the contract unit.
4 See Boston Woven Hose and Rubber Company, Division of American
Biltrite Rubber Company, Incorporated, 123 NLRB 501 (1959).
5 See Applachutn Shale Products Co., 121 NLRB 1160 (1958). Even
assuming that the record testimony is unclear as to whether or not the tool
and die makers are included in the contract unit, such circumstance would
not in our view, contrary to the Regional Director, remove the contract as
a bar to the instant petition
217 NLRB No. 151