Extract
Lockheed Martin Tactical Aircraft Systems, 1407 (2000)
Paulette Beveridge
Office and Professional Employees International Union, Local 277, AFL-CIO and Alma Paulette Beveridge. Cases 16-CA-17464, 16-CA-17588, 16-CB-4764, and 16-CB-4805 August 25, 2000DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS FOX, LIEBMAN, AND BRAME On September 23, 1996, Administrative Law Judge Albert A. Metz issued the attached decision. The Respondent and the Union filed exceptions and supporting briefs, and the General Counsel filed an answering brief to the Respondent's exceptions. The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has reviewed the decision and the record in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to af-firm the judge's rulings,1 findings,2 and conclusions to the extent consistent with this Decision and Order and to adopt the recommended Order as modified and set forth in full below. Reclassification of P&A Employees The judge found that the Respondent Employer violated Section 8(a)(1), (2), and (3) and that the Respondent Union violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act by, inter alia, entering into an unlawful agreement to accrete previously unrepresented salaried professional and administrative employees (P&A) in Department 17-4 (Graphic Arts) into the existing bargaining unit at a time when the Union did not represent a majority of these previously unrepresented P&A employees and by applying the terms of the Respondent's collective-bargaining agreement to them. The Respondents except to the judge's findings, contending that this case involves only the lawful return of bargaining unit work which had seeped out over time from the bargaining unit. We find merit in the Respondents' exceptions and, for the following reasons, we re-verse the judge's findings in this respect. The basic facts are not in dispute. The judge found that the Respondents have had a collective-bargaining rela- tionship since 1951 and have signed successive collective-bargaining agreements over the years covering a unit of all office and clerical employees. It is also undisputed that the P&A employees have been historically excluded. 1 The Respondent Employer has renewed its motion to reopen the record to submit transcript testimony from a 10(j) hearing which was previously denied by the judge. For the reasons stated by the judge and in light of our decision in this matter, we deny the motion. The Respondent Employer has also requested oral argument. The request is denied as the record, exceptions, and briefs adequately present the issues and the positions of the parties. 2 The Respondent Employer has also excepted to some of the judge's credibility findings. The Board's established policy is not to overrule an administrati...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
