The Armstrong Rubber Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 18, 1974

208 N.L.R.B. 513 (N.L.R.B. 1974)

ARMSTRONG RUBBER COMPANY
The Armstrong Rubber Company' and Herbert R.
Knapp , et al., Petitioner, and United Rubber, Cork,
Linoleum and Plastic Workers of America, Local
Union No. 164 . Case 18-RD-563
January 18, 1974
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND
PENELLO
A petition was duly filed on April 12, 1973, under
Section 9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended. Or, May 10, 1973, the Regional Director
for Region 18 dismissed the petition and on May 26,
1973, the Petitioner appealed that dismissal. There-
after, on July 23. 1973, the Board issued a ruling on
the appeal in which it directed that a hearing he held.
A hearing was held on September 13, 1973, before
Hearing Officer Karen A. Hammerstrom. Following
the hearing, the Regional Director, pursuant to
Section 102.67 of the National Labor Relations
Board Rules and Regulations and Statements of
Procedure, Series 8, as amended, transferred this case
to the National Labor Relations Board for decision.
The Petitioner and the Union filed briefs.
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 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 case, 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 Petitioner, an employee of the Employer,
asserts that the Union, a labor organization, is no
longer the representative, as defined in Section 9(a)
of the Act, of the employees designated in the
petition.
3. The Petitioner seeks to decertify the Union as
the representative of all the tire laboratory techni-
cians at the Employer's Des Moines, Iowa, plant,
excluding all other employees. The Union contends
that the petition should be dismissed because the
certified unit sought is not coextensive with the
existing collective-bargaining unit and therefore is
not appropriate for decertification. The Petitioner
takes the position that the certified unit is appropri-
ate for decertification because its separate identity
513
has been maintained in bargaining. The Employer is
in agreement with the Petitioner.
The Employer, a Connecticut corporation, is
engaged in the manufacture and sale of rubber tires
at its Midwest Division plant in Des Moines, Iowa.
There are approximately 1.400 employees at the Des
Moines plant who are represented by the Union.
There are nine classified as tire laboratory techni-
cians, sometimes referred to as laboratory develop-
ment employees, who work in the technical services
department. Others in that department include
professional engineers and chemists and clerical
employees who are unrepresented.
Since 1943 the Employer has recognized the Union
as the collective-bargaining representative of the
production and maintenance employees at its Des
Moines, Iowa, plant. On January 16, 1969, pursuant
to a Stipulation for Certification Upon Consent
Election, the Board certified the Union as the
collective-bargaining representative for all tire labo-
ratory technicians at the Des Moines plant in Case
18-RC-7720.
Since 1959 the Employer and the International
Union of United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum and
Plastic Workers of America have executed master
Uniform Agreements covering for the most part units
of production and maintenance employees at the
various Armstrong plants. The Employer and local
unions of the International have also entered into
supplemental agreements at individual plants. The
most recent master Uniform Agreement, applicable
to the Midwest Division, Des Moines, Iowa, as well
as to other of the Employer's divisions, was effective
from October 15, 1970, to July 1, 1973. A Local
Supplemental agreement, entered into between the
Employer and the Union, Local No. 164, applicable
to the Des Moines plant, was effective from
December 12, 1970, to July 1, 1973. At the time of
the hearing, in September 1973. the Uniform and
Local Supplemental agreement, had expired.
The most recent master Uniform and Supplemen-
tal Agreement included the tire laboratory techni-
cians. The Uniform Agreement provided, in its
recognition clause, that the term "employees" was
subject to the inclusions and exclusions currently
recognized by the parties and set out in local plant
supplemental agreements. The 1970 Local Supple-
mental Agreement specifically included the disputed
category. The recognition clause read:
The term "employee" or "employees," for the
purpose of this agreement shall apply only to
incentive and hourly-rated production and main-
tenance employees including shipping, receiving
and warehouse employees. Janitors, storekeepers,
1 The Employer's name appears as amended at the hearing
208 NLRB No. 83
514 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
powerhouse employees, finished tire inspectors,
laboratory and development employees only as
defined by the National Labor Relations Board in
N.L.R.B. Case # 18-RC-7720, Scheduling em-
ployees only as defined by the National Labor
Relations Board in N.L.R.B. Case # 18-
RC-7791, but shall exclude executives, super-
intendents, foremen, supervisors, office and cleri-
cal workers, employees engaged in engineering,
laboratory and development work including
quality control technicians and plant protection
employees. [Emphasis supplied.]
This specific reference to the unit certified in Case
18-RC-7720 translated the parties' understanding,
reached during negotiation of the 1970 Uniform
Agreement, that the tire laboratory technicians "shall
be included" in the Local Supplemental Agreement.2
The major terms of the most recent Uniform and
Local Supplemental collective-bargaining agree-
ments, as well as other agreements for employee
benefit programs, apply to all employees in the
contract unit including the tire laboratory techni-
cians. The benefit programs are retirement pension,
life insurance, severance pay, hospitalization, surgi-
cal, medical, accident and sickness insurance, and
supplemental workmen's compensation. A laborato-
ry technician took part in negotiations and was a
signatory to the 1970 Local Supplemental Agree-
ment. While there are some special provisions in the
Local Supplemental Agreement applicable to tire
laboratory technicians, they reflect only a recogni-
tion of the technicians' special skills. They are
insufficient to establish a separateness from the
existing contract unit.3
The 1969 decision in The Armstrong Rubber
Company, 180 NLRB 410, is not dispositive of this
case. The earlier case arose before execution of the
2 Joint Exh. i, p 137. Letter from Mr Vincent M Helm for the
Employer to Mr Robert Garber, representative of the Union's parent
International
3 These include seniority, Job qualifications, probationary period, layoff,
most recent Uniform and Local Supplemental
agreements. The Union had filed a unit clarification
petition seeking to add to the long recognized
production and maintenance bargaining unit two
units that had been separately certified in early 1969.
These were the tire laboratory technicians, who are
involved in the subject case, and the scheduling
department employees. The Board dismissed the
petition because the Union had not included other
employees having like interests and functions.
Since the decision in that case the Union and
Employer, in their collective-bargaining agreements,
have treated the tire laboratory technicians as part of
the overall unit. Differences that existed in 1969
between the tire laboratory technicians and the
production and maintenance employees appear to
have been removed in the intervening years. The tire
laboratory technicians, once salaried, are now hourly
paid and their employee benefits are no different
from those received by other employees covered by
the Uniform Agreement.
In view of the past 2-1/2-year history of bargaining
and the several applicable bargaining agreements
establishing substantially uniform conditions of
employment for all represented employees, including
the tire laboratory technicians, we find that there has
been an effective merger of the individually certified
unit into the broader recognized contract unit. We
find that, as the certified unit sought is but a segment
of the existing recognized contract unit, it is not
appropriate for decertification.4 We shall therefore
dismiss the petition.
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the petition filed herein
be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
and recall , and also apply to other selected groups in addition to tire
laboratory technicians
4 W T Grant Company, 179 NLRB 670