Opinion ID: 532737
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: continuity of representation

Text: 6 The Supreme Court has stated that  '[t]he industrial stability sought by the [NLRA] would unnecessarily be disrupted if every union organizational adjustment were to result in displacement of the employer-bargaining representative relationship.'  NLRB v. Financial Inst. Employees, Local 1182, 475 U.S. 192, 202-03, 106 S.Ct. 1007, 1012-13, 89 L.Ed.2d 151 (1986) (Seattle-First ) (quoting Canton Sign Co., 174 N.L.R.B. 906, 909 (1969)). The Company, as the party seeking such displacement, has the burden of proving its claim of discontinuity. See Insulfab Plastics, Inc., 274 N.L.R.B. 817, 821 (1985), enforced sub nom. NLRB v. Insulfab Plastics, Inc., 789 F.2d 961 (1st Cir.1986). The Board's findings of fact regarding changes resulting from union reorganizations are conclusive if supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole. See Insulfab Plastics, 789 F.2d at 966. 7 The Company contends that the Board erred in adopting the ALJ's finding of continuity between Locals 895 and 430. The Company first argues that Local 895 was defunct at the time of the merger, and therefore was incapable of shifting its representational rights to another local. However, [a] bargaining representative is considered defunct ... only if it is unable or unwilling to represent the employees. Yates Indus., Inc., 264 N.L.R.B. 1237, 1249 (1982). Here, substantial evidence supported the determination that the Union sought the trusteeship and the merger in order to bring fresh leadership to the Union and to eliminate the impasse in contractual negotiations and work for a new contract. ALJ Decision at 12. Furthermore, the Company failed to question the vitality of Local 895 until after the merger election; the delay in asserting defunctness substantially weakens the plea. 8 The Company has similarly failed to sustain its burden of proving discontinuity of representation. In assessing continuity, the NLRB does not run down a checklist of certain cited criteria; instead, the Board considers the totality of a situation. Yates Indus., 264 N.L.R.B. at 1250. Continuity is evidenced by the maintenance of traces of a preexisting identity and the retention of autonomy over the day-to-day administration of bargaining agreements. Accordingly, a question concerning representation has been found to exist when [a] change would result in the complete loss of the identity of the certified union and in the substitution of a new and different union as representative of the employees in the certified unit. The Gas Serv. Co., 213 N.L.R.B. 932, 933 (1974); see also Gulf Oil Corp., 135 N.L.R.B. 184 (1962). 9 No such loss of identity occurred here. In contrast, as counsel for the Company conceded at oral argument, the structure of the chapel, or collective bargaining unit, composed of Company employees remained essentially unchanged after the merger. Of principal importance, the chapel retained primary responsibility for processing grievances, administering collective bargaining agreements, and ratifying contracts with the Company. 10 The Company contends that because the local has veto power over contracts ratified by the chapel, and because the former membership of Local 895 comprises only half the membership of Local 430, the merger impermissibly curtailed the employees' autonomy. Contrary to the Company's suggestion, however, a question concerning representation is not automatically generated whenever a relatively small group merges into a larger one. If, as in this case, sufficient indicia of continuing autonomy are present, numerical disparities in voting strength will not force a finding of discontinuity. See Montgomery Ward & Co., 188 N.L.R.B. 551, 552 (1971) (holding that merger of 500-member local into 11,000-member sister local did not alter essential identity of bargaining representative). Furthermore, before the merger, contracts between the Company and Local 895 were already subject to veto by the ITU, see Constitution, Bylaws, General Laws and Convention Laws of the International Typographical Union, Art. VII, Secs. 3-4 (1984); the merger, therefore, did not drastically reduce the actual autonomy of the Company's employees. In short, the Board was justified in finding that any administrative or organizational changes resulting from the merger were not sufficiently dramatic to alter the union's identity. Seattle-First, 475 U.S. at 206, 106 S.Ct. at 1015.