The Bendix Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 29, 1974

210 N.L.R.B. 1026 (N.L.R.B. 1974)

1026 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Bendix Corporation, Process Instruments Divi-
sion and Joyce Y. McGee and Nelva Jean
Johnson, Petitioners and Laborers Interna-
tional Union of North America , Local No. 1304,
AFL-CIO. Case 9-RD-633
May 29, 1974
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS JENKINS, KENNEDY, AND
PENELLO
Upon a decertification petition duly filed under
Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended , a hearing was held before Hearing Officer
James R. Schwartz at Lewisburg , West Virginia.
Following the hearing and pursuant to Section
102.67 of the Board 's Rules and Regulations and
Statements of Procedure , Series 8 , as amended, the
Acting Regional Director for Region 9 transferred
this case to the Board for decision . The Petitioners
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 Petitioners , employees of the Employer,
assert that the Union , which is the currently
recognized bargaining representative of the employ-
ees involved herein , is no longer a representative as
defined in Section 9 (a) of the Act.
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.
On January 30, 1971 , the Employer and Union
entered into a 3-year collective-bargaining agreement
expiring on January 29, 1974. A representative of the
Union contacted the Employer for the purpose of
commencing negotiations on a new contract, and
negotiating meetings subsequently began on Decem-
ber 18 , 1973. Several items in the old contract were
left unchanged and did not require further negotia-
tions. In order to reflect these initial understandings
of the Employer and the Union's duly designated
' Where a contract, which otherwise would constitute a bar, is executed
the same day a decertification petition has been filed, said contract will bar
an election if it is effective immediately or retroactively and the employer
210 NLRB No. 108
negotiating committee, P. L. Morgan, director of
industrial relations for the Employer, and Lyle
Kirker, business manager of the Union, initialled on
January 10, 1974, a copy of the expiring contract
adding the letters "T.A.T." (Tentatively Agreed To)
and struck lines through those clauses of the old
agreement subject to negotiations. Additionally, on
January 10 the parties agreed on nine items (includ-
ing layoffs, leaves of absence, service with the
volunteer fire department, letters of understanding,
shift preference, transfers to and from the bargaining
unit, and holiday pay) over which negotiations had
been held, and these, too, upon reduction to writing,
were each initialled by Morgan and Kirker along
with "T.A.T" leaving only the issues of wages and
other economic benefits yet to be settled. On January
17, 1974, the Union's membership ratified the new
collective-bargaining agreement as to all terms and
conditions except wages.
Negotiations continued, and on January 29, 1974,
the Employer and the negotiating committee reached
agreement regarding the remaining terms and condi-
tions of the collective-bargaining agreement, but a
membership vote that day failed to approve these
remaining items. The employees struck for 2 days,
but on February 1, 1974, at a membership meeting
they voted to ratify the same wage package together
with all that had been ratified at the January 17
meeting.
On February 4, 1974, the same day in which the
decertification petition in the case herein was filed,
the Employer, by its duly designated representative,
and the Union, by the individual members of the
negotiating committee, signed a "Letter of Agree-
ment." There is no contention and no evidence that
either the Union or the Employer was aware of the
petition and/or its filing at the time the "Letter of
Agreement" was signed.' The "Letter of Agree-
ment," dated February 4, 1974, fully identifies the
parties and notes that an agreement had been
reached on February 1, 1974. The document then set
forth in pertinent part:
The Agreement shall be effective until midnight,
January 31, 1977, and shall be fully documented
in full particular for signature by the parties; and
shall include the following general provisions.
A) Language on general terms and conditions
as agreed between the parties and as stated in
their accepted terms in negotiation.
The remainder of the "Agreement," appearing under
subpargraph "E," specifically details the economic
has not been informed at the time of the execution that a petition has been
filed Deluxe Metal Furniture Company, 121 NLRB 995, 999.
BENDIX CORP. 1027
terms agreed upon at the January 29 negotiating
session and ratified at the February 1 membership
meeting including the pension plan, insurance
benefits, additional holidays, job classification pro-
gressions , and wage rates.
For subparagraph "A" to have any meaning
whatsoever, it is subject to but one interpretation;
i.e., that it incorporates by reference the initialled
expired contract as well as the other initialled terms
and conditions set forth in separate writings. Thus, in
evaluating the contents of subparagraphs "A" and
"B" along with the pertinent dates and signatures,
the "Letter of Agreement" Constitutes an appropri-
ate informal document containing substantial terms
and conditions of employment sufficient in detail to
serve as a contract bar to a decertification petition.2
The coexistence of the initialled documents embody-
ing the terms and conditions ratified on January 17,
1974, with the February 4 "Letter of Agreement,"
assured the requisite industrial stability which is
achieved only where a "contract undertakes to chart
with adequate precision the course of the bargaining
relationship and the parties can look to the actual
terms and conditions of their contract for guidance
in their day-to-day problems."3 Accordingly, we find
that the petition for decertification is barred by an
effective collective-bargaining agreement.
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the petition filed herein
be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
2 See Appalachian Shale Products Co., 121 NLRB 1160, 1162
3 /bid at 1163.