The Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 19, 1953

105 N.L.R.B. 674 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

674 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE WILL make William F. Coopersmith whole for any loss of pay suffered by him as
a result of our having caused his discharge by Lauren Burt, Inc., of Colorado.
CARPET, LINOLEUM AND RESILIENT TILE
LAYERS, LOCAL UNION NO, 419, AFFILIATED
WITH BROTHERHOOD OF PAINTERS,DECORA-
TORS AND PAPER HANGERS OF AMERICA, AFL,
Labor Organization.
Dated ................ By..................................... ........................................................
(Representative ) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
THE GOODYEAR TIRE AND RUBBER COMPANY and BRICK-
LAYERS, MASONS & PLASTERERS INTERNATIONAL
UNION OF AMERICA , LOCAL NO. 7, AFL, Petitioner. Case
No. 8-RC-1937 . June 19, 1953
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Charles A.
Fleming, hearing officer . The hearing officer ' s rulings made
at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby
affirmed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the
Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to
a three-member panel [Members Houston, Styles, and
Peterson] .
Upon the entire record in this case , the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the mean-
ing of the Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the
representation of employees of the Employer within the mean-
ing of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 ( 6) and ( 7) of the Act, for
the following reasons:
The Petitioner requests a unit of bricklayers, cement masons,
and plasterers at the Employer's plants in Akron, Ohio. It
contends that these employees constitute a craft group to which
the Board has customarily granted a separate representation,
notwithstanding a history of collective bargaining on a broader
basis.' The Employer and the Intervenor , United Rubber,
Cork, Linoleum & Plastic Workers of America, CIO, Z and
i The bricklayers, who perform the duties of cement masons and plasterers as well, have
been -included with other production and maintenance employees, for purposes of collective
bargaining , since 1937 at the Akron plants.
2 Herein referred to as URW-CIO or, together with its Local No. 2, as the Intervenor
105 NLRB No. 97.
THE GOODYEAR TIRE AND RUBBER COMPANY 675
its Local No. 2, urge that the history of collective bargaining
on a multiplant basis precludes the establishment of the pro-
posed unit.
The Employer , engaged in the manufacture of rubber tires,
tubes, and other rubber products , owns and operates , either
directly or through subsidiaries , plants in 10 cities located in
various parts of the country .3 It would appear that the Em-
ployer has nearly 27,000 production and maintenance em-
ployees, of whom approximately 15,242 work in the 3 Akron
plants where the 8 bricklayers , sought by the Petitioner, are
employed.
Since 1947 , the Employer has negotiated companywide
agreements , covering the production and maintenance em-
ployees' at all of its plants , with URW-CIO and 10 of its
Locals. The last of these agreements , which is similar to
previous ones, is a 30-page document setting out in detail pro-
visions concerning wages, hours, piecework standards , griev-
ances, union security , seniority , vacations, holidays, andother
working conditions at all the plants. It contains a provision that
"Matters which were the subject of negotiations on a company-
wide basis shall not be negotiated on a local plant basis," but
provisions respecting working supervisors , supplying of tools
in engineering divisions , derogatory notations in employees'
records, job - classification committees , lost service, washup
time, furnishing clothes on undesirable jobs, intraplant in-
equities , and impairment of earnings by removal of machine
parts are subject to local plant negotiations . By its terms, the
agreement becomes "effective at each plant at the time the
local Supplement to this agreement is completed , by ratifica-
tion of the Local Union and approval of the International Union,
provided this agreement has been approved by a majority of
the Local Unions representing a majority of the membership,
and the General Executive Board of the Union ." The agreement
was negotiated and signed by representatives of the Employer
and URW-CIO and by members of the International policy com-
mittee, composed of 1 or more representatives from each of
the 10 Locals involved.5
The companywide agreements contain provisions that their
terms "shall supersede and render ineffective any conflicting
provisions in supplemental local plant agreements as may exist
or may hereafter be agreed upon ." At least the last two
agreements6 have contained provisions for reopening the gen-
3 The plants are located in Akron and St. Marys, Ohio; Windsor, Maine; New Bedford, Massa-
chusetts; Jackson, Michigan; Muncie, Indiana; Gadsden, Alabama; Topeka, Kansas; Lincoln,
Nebraska; and Los Angeles, California.
4 The wood and metal patternmakers , who were certified at the Akron plants in a separate
unit in 1944, are excluded from the unit . See American Steel Foundries , Alliance Works, 101
NLRB 655, footnote 3 therein.
5At the time of the hearing , negotiation of a local supplement at the Akron plants had not
been completed . However , the Intervenor asserts that the companywide agreement , signed
February 28, 1953, is a bar to this proceeding In view of our holding on the craft severance
question , we find it unnecessary to rule on either this or other contentions raised by the
parties.
6 These are the only ones in evidence.
676 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
eral wage scale, and for modification at the anniversary date,
upon the prescribed notices of the Employer or URW-CIO.
There is no provision for similar notices by the management
or local union at the respective plants. Furthermore, the rec-
ord reveals that there is a firmly established pattern of
companywide bargaining in the industry. The URW-CIO has
similar contracts with the other 3 of the "Big Four" tire and
rubber companies,' and with some of the smaller companies 8
which have 2 or 3 plants.
The foregoing facts seem to militate for finding a history of
multiplant bargaining. Nevertheless, there are certain aspects
of the record which might lend support to a conclusion that the
bargaining has not been on the basis of a single multiplant
unit.' The recognition clause of the companywide agreement
refers to URW-CIO and the Locals "as the bargaining agents
for the employees of the Employees in the above named
plants . . . in the bargaining units." (Emphasis added.) There
are other such references in the agreement to bargaining units,
as well as provisions for local processing of grievances
(though under a uniform procedure), for local plant seniority,
and for handling of other matters at the plant level, in addition
to the above-mentioned provision for the negotiation of local
supplemental agreements on certain limited issues.
We believe, however, that these factors are outweighed by
(1) the companywide agreements which contain extensive pro-
visions covering all the substantive terms usual to collective-
bargaining agreements ," (2) the prohibition against conflict-
ing provisions in the local supplements, (3) the participation
of all 10 Locals in the negotiation and execution of the agree-
ments, (4) the requirement of approval of the companywide
master agreements by a majority of the Locals representing
a majority of the Employer's employees, and (5) the relegation
to the Employer and URW-CIO of the right to effectuate changes
in companywide agreements . Moreover, the Board has held
that the negotiation of supplemental agreements on a local
plant basis," references in master agreements to "units" in
the plural, and provisions for local plant seniority and the
handling of grievances and other matters at the plant level
are "not inconsistent with a finding of multiplant bargaining." 12
We therefore find that the record establishes a long history
of collective bargaining on the basis of exclusive recognition
in a multiplant unit embracing the production and maintenance
employees at all the Employer's plants and that this kind of
bargaining is typical in the industry. The Board has long fol-
7 Firestone Tire and Rubber Company, B. F. Goodrich Company, and United States Rubber
Company
8 E. g., the General Tire and Rubber Company. Cf. Armstrong Tire and Rubber Company,
104 NLRB 892.
9Hygrade Food Products Corporation, 85 NLRB 841.
10 Lever Brothers Company, 97 NLRB 1240, 1242.
tlIbtd.
"St Regis Paper Company, 97 NLRB 1051, 1056.
THE MENNEN COMPANY 677
lowed the policy of requiring, where there has been such an
established history of collective bargaining on a multiplant
basis, that severance of craft employees must be coextensive
with the multiplant unit." As the unit sought by the Petitioner
is limited to the Akron plants, it is inappropriate. Conse-
quently, we shall dismiss the petition.14
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
13 American Steel Foundries, Alliance Works, supra and cases cited therein.
14 Member Peterson agrees that the petition in this case should be dismissed in view of the
history of collective bargaining on a broader basis. However, by joining in the result here
reached he does not wish to be understood as agreeing with the implication that if craft
organization had been coextensive with the multiplant unit , severance should be permitted. See
his dissenting opinion in W. C. Hamilton & Sons, 104 NLRB 627.
THE MENNEN COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL CHEMICAL
WORKERS UNION, AFL, Petitioner. Case No. 4-RC-1921.
June 19, 1953
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 ( c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Eugene M.
Levine, hearing officer . The hearing officer ' s rulings made at
the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby
affirmed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the
Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to
a three-member panel [Members Houston , Murdock,, and
Styles ] .
Upon the entire record in this case , the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the mean-
ing of the Act.
2. The Petitioner and Local No. 649, International Union of
Automobile Workers, AFL, which intervened on the basis of
its contractual interest, claim to represent certain employees
of the Employer.
3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the
representation of employees of the Employer within the mean-
ing of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and ( 7) of the Act, for
the following reasons:
On November 15, 1951, and February 8, 1952, respectively,
the Intervenor and the Employer executed separate contracts,
effective until May 15, 1954, covering employees at the Em-
ployer's warehouse in Kearny , New Jersey , and the pro-
duction and maintenance employees at the Employer ' s plant in
Newark , New Jersey. The Intervenor contends that these
contracts constitute a bar to a present determinationof repre-
sentatives and therefore moves the dismissal of the petition.
The Petitioner seeks a single unit of these employees who
105 NLRB No. 101.