Brom Mach. & Foundry Co. v. N.L.R.B., 77-1506
| Decision Date | 31 January 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 77-1506,77-1506 |
| Parties | 97 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2590, 83 Lab.Cas. P 10,337 BROM MACHINE & FOUNDRY CO., Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Emery W. Bartle (on appendix and briefs) of Dorsey, Windhorst, Hannaford, Whitney & Halladay, Minneapolis, Minn., argued and made rebuttal, for petitioner; Jay L. Bennett, Minneapolis, Minn., on appendix and briefs.
Marion Griffin and Tom Gosselin (argued), Attys., John S. Irving, Gen. Counsel, John E. Higgins, Jr., Deputy Gen. Counsel, Carl L. Taylor, Associate Gen. Counsel and Elliott Moore, Deputy Associate Gen. Counsel, Washington, D. C., on brief, for respondent.
Before ROSS, STEPHENSON and WEBSTER, Circuit Judges.
Brom Machine & Foundry Company has petitioned this court for review of an order of the National Labor Relations Board finding it to have violated §§ 8(a) (5) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act, 1 by refusing to bargain with International Molders & Allied Workers, Local 63, (the Union), the certified bargaining representative of its employees. The Board has filed a cross-application for enforcement of its order.
The company admittedly has refused to bargain. It contends that the Union's challenges to three ballots in a decertification election should have been overruled and those ballots should have been counted. It argues that, since the Board failed to overrule those challenges, its certification of the Union was invalid. We disagree and grant the Board's cross-application for enforcement of its order.
From 1959 to 1974 an independent union represented the company's production and maintenance employees, including its patternmakers. In 1974, pursuant to a Stipulation for Certification upon Consent Election, 2 the Board conducted an election offering the company's employees three choices: 1) being unrepresented; 2) continued representation by the independent union; or 3) being represented by the Union. The stipulation described the appropriate unit for collective bargaining as:
All full-time and regular part-time production and maintenance employees; but excluding all office clerical employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the National Labor Relations Act, as amended.
The eligibility list for the 1974 election included two patternmakers and a part-time janitor. 3
A majority of the employees voted to be represented by the Union and it was certified by the Regional Director. The company and the Union arrived at a bargaining agreement which expressly excluded the two patternmakers from the bargaining unit. The part-time janitor was excluded by oral agreement of the parties.
After the bargaining agreement expired on March 16, 1976, one employee filed a decertification petition. Another Stipulation for Certification upon Consent Election was approved by the Regional Director. The parties' stipulation regarding the bargaining unit was basically the same as the 1974 stipulation. However, the Union later objected to the inclusion on the voting eligibility list of the three employees who had been excluded from the unit under the last bargaining agreement and who had been excluded from the first voting eligibility list for the 1976 decertification election.
The election was held on May 21, 1976, with the following results: 19 votes in favor of representation by the Union; 17 votes against representation; and 3 ballots challenged by the Union (those of the two patternmakers and the janitor).
After investigating the challenges, the Regional Director recommended certification of the Union. The Board sustained the challenges and certified the Union. Thereafter the company refused the Union's bargaining request and the Union filed an unfair labor practice charge. Finding §§ 8(a)(5) and (1) violations, the Board issued a cease and desist order to the company.
In reaching its decision sustaining the Union's challenge to the three votes, the Board relied on its policy that the appropriate unit in a decertification election is the unit recognized in the last collective bargaining agreement. In Continental Can Company, 217 N.L.R.B. 316 (1975), the Board stated:
(I)n decertification cases the appropriate unit in which to conduct an election is the certified or contract unit. If the certified unit has been changed by contract, the Board relies upon the unit recognized by collective bargaining and on that basis holds an election to determine whether the employees wish to continue being represented.
The company contends that Continental Can does not control here because the parties stipulated to an appropriate unit. They cite an opinion...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
N.L.R.B. v. Hollaender Mfg. Co.
...and on that basis holds an election to determine whether the employees wish to continue being represented. Brom Machine & Foundry Co. v. NLRB, 569 F.2d 1042, 1043 (8th Cir.1978) (quoting Continental Can Co., 217 NLRB 316 At Hollaender, the unit certified by the Board in 1965 (and not altere......
-
Heritage Broadcasting Co. of Michigan v. N.L.R.B.
...national labor policy. Hollaender Mfg., 942 F.2d at 326; Saints Mary & Elizabeth, 808 F.2d at 1212; accord Brom Machine & Foundry Co. v. NRLB, 569 F.2d 1042, 1044 (8th Cir.1978) (holding that the bargaining unit for decertification proceeding can be no larger than the one recognized in the ......
-
Boston Police Patrolmen's Ass'n, Inc. v. Labor Relations Com'n
...9, 1976), or the unit was properly modified by contract, the 1967 certification remained in effect. Cf. Brom Mach. & Foundry Co. v. N.L.R.B., 569 F.2d 1042, 1043 (8th Cir.1978). Despite the association's strong feelings that its members should not work for SIU, it could not, consistently wi......
-
Saints Mary and Elizabeth Hosp. v. N.L.R.B.
...or by the employees themselves in their inclusion when the collective bargaining agreement was negotiated. Cf. Brom Machine & Foundry Co. v. NLRB, 569 F.2d 1042 (8th Cir.1978). Accordingly, the petition for review is DENIED and the Board's petition for enforcement is GRANTED in ...