The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 30, 1964

147 N.L.R.B. 1233 (N.L.R.B. 1964)

GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER CO. (APPLE GROVE PLANT) 1233
[The Board set aside the election.]
[Text of Direction of New Runoff Election omitted from
publication.]
MEMBER LEEDOM took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Direction of New Runoff Election.
The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company (Apple Grove, West
Virginia Plant)' and United Rubber , Cork , Linoleum and
Plastic Workers of America, AFL-CIO and its Local Union
No. 644.2 Cases Nos. 9-RC-4345 and 9-RD-295. June 30, 1964
DECISION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
CLARIFY BARGAINING UNIT
On January 18, 1961, the Union was certified as the bargaining
representative of the Employer's employees in the following unit :
All production employees, including warehouse and laboratory em-
ployees, of the Employer at its Apple Grove, West Virginia, plant, but
excluding office clerical employees, and all professional employees,
guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act..
Since then the parties have executed successive collective-bargaining
agreements covering the employees in the unit, the most recent of
which is currently in effect.
On May 5, 1964, the Employer filed the instant motion seeking to
have the Board clarify the above-described bargaining unit at its
Apple Grove, Nest Virginia, plant by excluding therefrom employees
in a, newly established "pilot plant." The Union filed a motion in op-
position to the Employer's motion, alleging that an arbitrator's award
had issued involving the exact issue and contending that the Board
should, therefore, decline to act.
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 Leedoin, Fanning, and Brown].
The Board has considered the above motion and opposition thereto,
and there appears to be no dispute asto the relevant and material
facts. Accordingly, as further corroboration through testimony of
the agreed-on facts would be superfluous, and as the positions of the
parties have been fully stated, the Board has decided to rule on the
questions presented, on the basis of the documents before it.
1 The plant is referred to in spine of the pleadings as the Point Pleasant , West Virginia,
plant.
2 Referred to hereinafter as the Union.
147 NLRB No. 162.
756-236-65-vol. 147- 79
1234 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
In late May 1963, the Employer established at Apple Grove, West
Virginia, a pilot plant, known as Department 149,3 to provide an ex-
perimental department for the spinning of certain resin products of
the chemical plant into a synthetic fiber or yarn to be tested as a tire
cord fabric. An area 95 feet by 20 feet was set aside within the build-
ing housing the Warehouse and Film Production Department.. It was
physically walled off from the rest of the plant, but there were two
doors opening into the plant and none leading outside from the pilot
plant area.', .
The Union filed it grievance claiming that under the collective agree-
ment the employees in Department 149 should be included in the bar-
gaining unit as an accretion and that the Employer's failure to so do
violated their agreement.-' Arbitration was invoked, and the' dispute
was presented to one of the umpires under the contract. The Em-
ployer argued before the arbitrator that the question involved was
within the exclusive jurisdiction of the NLRB and that the arbitra-
tor was bound by the Board's rules and precedents. It further argued
that as the department was not a "production" department it could not
be accreted to the existing production unit. On April 24, 1964, an
award was handed down by Arbitrator Whitley McCoy holding that
"the employees in Department 149 are covered by Articles I and IV
as alleged in the grievance." He concluded they were an accretion to
the existing unit and included them therein.
The Employer now alleges that the arbitrator's award is contrary
to the rules and precedents of the Board and asks the Board to pass
upon the question of whether this is an accretion to the existing unit.6
3 The main office at Akron, Ohio , designated the pilot plant at Apple Grove as Depart-
ment 409-B . It is referred to herein as Department 149, the designation given it at
Apple Grove.
e In the pilot plant, some extrusion , spinning, and twisting machinery was installed.
Only small amounts of synthetic fiber or yarn spun from certain resin products have been
produced and been tested to destruction in experimental tires in Akron, Ohio.
Section 1 (of article I) :
(a) The Company recognizes the Union as the exclusive bargaining agent for pro-
duction , warehouse and laboratory employees , subject to the inclusions and exclusions
as set forth in the certification of representation of the National Labor Relations
Board , Case No. 9-RC-4345 and No. 9-RD-295.
Section 1 (of article IV)
n a s r a s
(b) Any employee hired on or after the effective date of this agreement , or trans-
ferred into the bargaining unit , shall become a member of the Union not later than
thirty ( 30) days following his hire or transfer into the bargaining unit, and as a
condition of his continued employment shall maintain his Union membership as pro-
vided in paragraph ( a) of this section.
e The Employer further requests that if an accretion be found , the Board determine
whether the accreted employees should be given an opportunity to demonstrate their
wishes by secret ballot . However, although we do not reach this issue , we note that it
is well established that employees accreted to an existing unit are not accorded a self-
determination election. Borg-Warner Corporation, 113 NLRB 152, enfd. sub nom . Inter-
national Union, United Automobile, Aircraft, and Agricultural Implement Workers of
America, CIO v. N.L.R.B ., 231 F. 2d 237 (C.A. 7), cert. denied 852 U.S. 908.
KENNECOTT COPPER CORP., UTAH COPPER DIVISION 1235
As noted above, the Union contended that the arbitrator's award
should be dispositive of the matter. We find merit in the Union's
contention that the Board should honor the arbitration award.
In Raley's,7 the Board stated that in representation cases, as well as
unfair labor practice cases, where "a question of contract interpreta-
tion is in issue, and the parties thereto have set up in their agreement
arbitration machinery for the settlement of disputes arising under the
contract, and an award has already been rendered which meets Board
requirements applicable to arbitration awards, we think it would fur-
ther the underlying objectives of the Act to promote industrial peace
and stability to give effect thereto. It is true, of course, that under
Section 9 of the Act the Board is empowered to decide questions con-
cerning representation. However, this authority to decide questions
concerning representation does not preclude the Board in a proper case
from considering an arbitration award in determining whether such a
question exists."
We are satisfied that the award upon which the Union relies meets
the above-mentioned requirements. The arbitration proceeding was
conducted pursuant to a provision in the agreement between the Union
and Employer. The identical parties who are before the Board
presented to the arbitrator the identical issue as to the scope of the
contract, and there is no contention that the arbitration proceeding
was other than fair and regular and free from any procedural in-
firmity which might render the award unacceptable." In his award
of April 24, 1964, the arbitrator held that the contract covers the em-
ployees in Department 149. We see nothing in the arbitrator's de-
cision that is contrary to the purposes and policies of the Act. In
view of the foregoing, we find it will effectuate the policies and pur-
poses of the Act to honor the arbitration award finding that the con-
tract between the Employer and the Union covers the employees in
dispute herein, and we shall deny the Employer's motion.
[The Board denied the motion to clarify the certification in Case
No. 9-RC-4345.]
7 Raley's Inc., d/b/a Raley's Supermarkets , 143 NLRB 256.
8 The Employer 's position is based solely on its disagreement with the arbitrator's
conclusion.
Kennecott Copper Corporation , Utah Copper Division and Order
of Railway Conductors and Brakemen and Brotherhood of
Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen , Petitioners. Case No.
27-RC-0473 and 27-RC-2474. June 30, 1964
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
Upon petitions filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended, a consolidated hearing was held before Hear-
147 NLRB No. 154.