Thiokol Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 30, 1974

215 N.L.R.B. 908 (N.L.R.B. 1974)

908 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Thiokol Corporation ' and Truck Drivers and Helpers
Local Union 568, affiliated with International
Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehouse-
men and Helpers of America, Petitioner. Case
16-RC-6640
December 30, 1974
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, KENNEDY, AND PENELLO
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a hearing
was held before Hearing Officer William M. Gibson at
Fort Worth, Texas. Following the hearing and pursu-
ant to Section 102.67 of the Board's Rules and Regula-
tions and Statements of Procedure, Series 8, as
amended, the Regional Director for Region 16 trans-
ferred this case to the Board for decision. The Peti-
tioner and the Employer filed briefs.
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 reviewed the Hearing Officer's rul-
ings 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 labor organizations' involved claim to repre-
sent certain employees of the Employer.
3. 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:
Petitioner contends, inter alia, that an agreement
signed by the Employer and the Intervenor on April 1,
1974, is not in itself a contract sufficient to bar an
election here, and that it.does not on its face expressly
incorporate the terms of the expired contract. The Em-
ployer contends that the April 1 agreement is a suffi-
cient contract under Appalachian Shale Products Co.,
121 NLRB 1160 (1958), and The Bendix Corporation,
Process Instruments Division, 210 NLRB 1026 (1974),
that the parties have operated under the terms of the
agreement, and that the Employer submitted it to and
received approval from the Army, for whom it per-
forms contract work.
The Employer and the Intervenor entered into a 2-
year collective-bargaining agreement expiring Novem-
The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing
a International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, Caddo
Lodge No 1090, AFL-CIO, Intervenor
ber 16, 1973. In September 1973, the Petitioner filed a
petition in Case 16-RC-6414 covering the contract
unit; that petition was later dismissed by the Board on
March 27, 1974, as not being supported by an adequate
timely showing of interest. Prior to the filing of that
petition, by letter dated September 10, 1973, the Inter-
venor notified the Employer of its intent to terminate
the then existing agreement and suggested that the par-
ties arrange a mutually agreeable date for the first
meeting. After the contract expired the Employer and
Intervenor met and agreed to keep the expired agree-
ment in a status quo. A letter on IAM letterhead dated
November 29, 1973, confirmed that. All fringe benefits
were to be continued as per the agreement. Dues for the
Union were to be collected by stewards and officers of
the Union. All grievances not resolved to the satisfac-
tion of the grieved employees were to be put in the
backlog of unresolved grievances which would be part
and parcel to the Union's contract proposals to be "bar-
gained out across the bargaining table" when the
"pending litigation" had been resolved. Finally, the
letter requested that the Union be notified immediately
of any changes in the status quo so that it could bargain
on any such changes.
On April 1, 1974, shortly after the March 27 dis-
missal of the petition and some months before the in-
stant petition was filed on June 16, the representatives
of the Employer and the Intervenor met and concluded
an agreement which, according to testimony, was re-
duced to writing and dated that same day. That same
day the provisions of the agreement were ratified by the
union membership. The agreement is a two-page docu-
ment of seven paragraphs. The caption identifies the
parties, and it contains in paragraph II the following
sentence: "This contract shall run for two years, begin-
ning November 17, 1973, and expiring November 16,
1975, with a wage and benefits reopener for the second
year of the contract period."
The agreement in paragraph III provides for wage
increases for the 1973-74 period of 6-1/2 percent of the
existing rates, and in paragraph IV for the addition of
a tenth holiday. It also provides for the reestablishment
of dues checkoff as of April 1, and the granting of
insurance benefits previously offered only to nonbar-
gaining unit employees. Finally, the agreement pro-
vides for the incorporation and continued effectiveness
of a letter of agreement signed by the Company and the
Union pertaining to the upgrading of employees tem-
porarily working outside the bargaining unit.
Paragraph I of the agreement provides that, within
90 days from the date of signing, the Company and the
Union will have concluded an agreement on article 30
(seniority) to include any changes deemed appropriate
in the seniority article and to establish a craft training
program. Petitioner views this provision as "an agree-
215 NLRB No. 138
THIOKOL CORPORATION
ment to later agree," in itself contrary to the labor
stability requirements of Appalachian Shale. The lan-
guage of this paragraph I is explained by the Employer
as consistent with its earlier agreements of December
1973 with the IBEW and the Pipefitters covering em-
ployees in other units , and occasioned by charges
brought by the Equal Employment Opportunity Com-
mission against it involving existing seniority provi-
sions in this and other units . In view of these circum-
stances we do not regard the prospective bargaining
and consequent uncertainty of paragraph I as sufficient
to reniove the agreement as a contract bar.
This leaves for consideration the contention that the
April 1 agreement cannot serve as a bar to this petition
because it is not in itself a complete bargaining agree-
ment and does not specifically refer to the prior con-
tract and incorporate its unchanged provisions by ref-
erence . We note, however , that paragraphs III, IV, and
VI-dealing with wage increases , an additional "float-
909
ing holiday ," and reestablishment of dues
checkoff-all have meaning only when read in connec-
tion with the expired contract . We conclude, therefore,
that the April 1 agreement is subject to the interpreta-
tion that it incorporates by reference the prior contract,
which expired November 16, and that these two docu-
ments taken together , plus the November 29 letter of
agreement , do chart with adequate precision a continu-
ing bargaining relationship between the parties for an
appropriate unit . Accordingly , we find that the petition
is barred by an effective collective-bargaining
agreement.3
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the petition filed herein be,
and it hereby is, dismissed.
3 See The Bendix Corporation, supra