TWENTY-SIXTH ANNUAL REPORT - National Labor Relations Board

Representation Cases 59
dividual course of action with respect to its labor ielations " 1 Applying
this test, the Board found separate single-employer units appropriate
where, following a breakdown in associationwide negotiations,
individual employers abandoned group bargaining, did not pay
dues or assessments to the association—resulting in automatic termination
of membership under the association's bylaw s—and indicated
their desire to pursue an individual course of action by executing contracts
on a single-employer basis 2
In another case, the Board held that employers had not timely or
effectively withdrawn their authority from an employer association
to represent them, because their attempted withdrawal occur red either
after the commencement of multiemployer negotiations for an agreement
01 after the signing of the agreement, and their adoption of
this agreement showed that they did not intend to embark on a course
of independent bargaining
d Production and Maintenance Units
In the past, the Board has followed the policy of permitting the
separate representation of maintenance employees in the absence of
a bargaining history for production and maintenance employees 4
During this fiscal year, a Board majority in the Ante lean Cyanmzd
case 5 vacated an earlier decision in the same case C which held
that where one union seeks all the production and maintenance
employees involved and another unit seeks only a maintenance unit,
the broader unit alone is appropriate, notwithstanding the absence
of a bargaining history on the broader basis Upon i econsidei ation,
the Board majoiity found nothing in the 1 ecoi d here to show that
"the Employer's opeiation is so integrated that maintenance has
lost its identity as a function separate from pi oduction, and that
maintenance employees are not separately identifiable," and directed
self-determination elections in (1) a maintenance voting group, and
(2) a production voting group The majority pointed out, however,
that the absence of a more comprehensive bargaining history would
not necessarily establish the appropriateness of a maintenance unit,
and that the Board will "continue to examine on a case-by-case basis
the appropriateness of separate maintenance department units, fully
cognizant that homogeneity, cohesiveness, and other factors of sepa-
I Cooke, Waiters ce Waaresses Union, Local 3E7 (Greater Peoria Restaurant Assn ), 131
NLRB No 33
find
a Northcrrs Nevada Chapter, National Electrical Contractors Assn, 131 NLRB No 74
4 See Armst ong Cork Co, 80 NLRB 1328 • Allied Chemical Dye Corp • 120 NLRB 63,
67, and eases cited therein
5 Amerscan Cyanamid Co, 131 NLRB No 125, Member Rodgers dissenting
6 American Cyanamid Cc, 130 NLRB 1 former Chnfrmnn T.ee qJ find hinnthor
dissenting