Operations In Fiscal Year 1988 - National Labor Relations Board

42 Fifty-Thht Annual Report of the National Labor Relations Boardmust be in writing, properly executed, and binding on the parties;it also must be of defmite duration and in effect for no more than3 years; and, fmally, it must contain substantive terms and conditionsof employment and cannot otherwise be contrary to establishedpolicies of the Act.In Corporacion de Servicias Legales, 1 the Board considered thequestion of whether a contract covering a combined unit of professionaland nonprofessional employees could bar a petition torepresent only the employer's professional employees, who hadnever had the opportunity to vote on whether they wanted to beincluded in a combined unit pursuant to Section 9(b)(1) of theAct. 2 The Board affirmed the Regional Director's conclusionthat the then-existing collective-bargaining agreement betweenthe employer and the intervenor, Union Independiente de Trabajadoresde Servicios Legales, constituted a bar to the conduct ofan election and that the petition therefore must be dismissed.In finding that the contract barred the election petition in thiscase, the Regional Director had relied on the Board's decision inPennsylvania Power & Light Co. 3 Thereafter, the petitioner, Unionde Abogados de Servicios Legales de Puerto Rico, filed a timelyrequest for review, maintaining that the contract could not barits petition to represent only the employer's professional employeesbecause those employees had not voted to be included in thecombined unit, as provided for in Section 9(b)(1) of the Act.In granting the petitioner's request, the Board expressed itsconcern that two recent decisions4 "may have undermined theapplication of the contract-bar rule as applied to a mixed professional-nonprofessionalunit where a separate professional unit issought." However, after further review, it concluded that "aclose reading" of those cases had shown that the holding ofPennsylvania Power "has not been so eclipsed."First, the Board found that the facts of the instant case paralleledthose in Utah Power only insofar as it was the professionalemployees in that case who sought to take themselves out of themixed unit. It noted that although Utah Power authorizes theBoard to entertain a decertification petition, as distinguishedfrom a representation petition seeking a unit comprised only ofprofessional employees, neither Utah Power nor Wells Fargo supportsthe proposition that a petition may be filed at any time,even during the term of a collective-bargaining agreement.1 289 NLRB No. 79 (Chairman Stephens and Members Johansen and Babson).2 See Sonotone Corp, 90 NLRB 1236 (1950). A Sonotone self-determination election carries out thestatutory requirement of Sec. 9(b)(I) by asking the professional employees (1) whether they desire tobe included in a group composed of nonprofessional employees; and (2) their choice with respect to abargaining representative. If the majority of the professionals vote "yes" on inclusion, their votes arecounted with those of the nonprofessionals; if the majority vote "no," their votes are counted separatelyto determine which labor organization, if any, they want to represent them in a separate unit.3 122 NLRB 293 (1958), reaffd. in Retail Clerks Local 324 (Vincent Drugs), 144 NLRB 1247 (1963).4 See Wells Fargo Corp, 270 NLRB 787 (1984), affd. sub nom. Teamsters Local 807 v. NLRB, 755F.2d 5 (2d Cir. 1985), and Utah Power & Light Co., 258 NLRB 1059 (1981).