« PreviousContinue »
support of the charge, and (3) a set of exhibits referred to in the memorandum.
A copy of this charge has been sent by registered mail to Phil Beatty, Director of Labor Relations, The Boeing Company, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124.
Because of the exigency of the matter, we ask that the charge be investigated with utmost dispatch, and that, in addition to the issuance of a complaint, injunctive relief be sought pursuant to Section 10(j) of the Act. Preliminary injunctive relief pending adjudication of the matter before the Board is essential to the efficacy of final relief and to the prevention of total decimation of the work force. - Should you require additional information, we will be happy to furnish it to you. Should you decide that the matter requires submission to the Office of the General Counsel for advice, we would appreciate it if you would let us know that this course has been taken.
A copy of these papers has been given to the Office of the General Counsel in Washington in order to facilitate coordination of efforts. Sincerely yours,
WASHINGTON, D.C., March 30, 1971.
Re Boeing and International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers,
AFL-CIO (Kennedy Space Center).
DEAR MR. ORDMAN: I enclose a set of the following papers which I have today sent to Region 12 of the National Labor Relations Board for filing: (1) an unfair labor practice charge filed by the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO against The Boeing Company, (2) a memorandum in support of the charge, and (3) a set of exhibits referred to in the memorandum.
I am giving these pa pers to you now in order to facilitate consideration of our request to seek preliminary injunctive relief pursuant to Section 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act. Sincerely yours,
WASHINGTON, D.C., March 30, 1971. Re B-171391. M. E. MILLER, Esq., Assistant General Counsel, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. General Account
ing Office, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. MILLER: Supplementing my letter to you of March 23, 1971, I enclose a copy of an unfair labor practice charge made by the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO against The Boeing Company sent on March 30, 1971, to Region 12, National Labor Relations Board, for filing.
You will observe that part of the charge alleges the unlawful denial of employment to no less than 625 persons who are part of the incumbent work force performing base support services work at the Kennedy Space Center. Should the charge on behalf of these employees prevail, it would mean that they will be made whole for their loss of earnings between April 1, 1971 and the date of their employment by Boeing at the rate of 6% per annum. It follows that the cost credibility of Boeing's proposal is utterly jeopardized. You will also observe that, in contrast with the representations made by Boeing and NASA that most of the incumbent work force would be absorbed by Boeing, it now appears that only between one-fourth and one-third of the work force will actually be retained. Sincerely yours,
United States of America Before the National Labor Relations Board, Region 12
IN THE MATTER OF THE BOEING COMPANY, RESPONDENT, AND INTERNATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS AND AEROSPACE WORKERS, AFL-CIO, CHARGING PARTY
Memorandum of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace
Workers, AFL-CIO, in Support of Its Charge
The International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL CIO, submits this memorandum in support of its charge against The Boeing Company which reads as follows:
1. The Boeing Company refuses to recognize the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, as the representative of the unit of nonsupervisory employees performing base support services work for Boeing under the latter's contract with National Aeronautics and Space Administration to provide such services at the John F. Kennedy Space Center, Florida.
2. As of April 1, 1971, The Boeing Company unilaterally, without prior notification to or negotiation with the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, reduced the existing wages and other benefits of the employees within the foregoing unit.
3. The Boeing Company refuses to adopt and observe the appropriate terms of the existing collective bargaining agreement between International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFICIO, and Trans World Airlines, not due to expire until December 31, 1971, which establishes the wages, hours, and other employment terms of the foregoing unit of employees.
4. The Boeing Company refuses to employ an undetermined number of employees, no less than 625, constituting part of the incumbent work force within the foregoing unit at work at the John F. Kennedy Space Center as of March 31, 1971, in violation of the rights of those employees protected by section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act.
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS
1. The organizations involved in this proceeding may be identified as follows:
(a) International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFLCIO (IAMAW), is a national labor organization, representing employees in collective bargaining throughout the United States, and is headquartered at Washington, D.C.
(b) National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is an agency of the United States whose function it is to "plan, direct, and conduct areonautical and space activities. . . ." 42 U.S.C. § 2473(a) (1).
(c) Trans World Airlines, Inc., (TWA) is a Delaware corporation and has its executive offices in New York City.
(d) The Boeing Company (Boeing) is a Delaware corporation and has its executive offices in Seattle, Washington.
2. NASA operates the John F. Kennedy Space Center (KSC) in Florida within a geographical area known as the Merritt Island, Florida area. KSC is NASA's principal launch site for manned and unmanned space launches.
3. Since March 9, 1964, TWA has furnished NASA with base support services at KSC, including test support management, plant engineering and maintenance, logistics, mail and postal distribution, janitorial services, fire prevention and protection services, quality assurance, and security services. These base support services have been furnished by TWA to NASA pusuant to a cost-plus-award-fee contract due to expire on March 31, 1971. The contract is known as Base Support Services Contract No. NA$10–1242.
4. Through March 31, 1971, except for the employees performing guard, fire service, janitorial, and training services, the nonsupervisory personnel employed by TWA, about 1,100 to perform these base support services at KSC were represented in collective bargaining by IAMAW, and the terms of their employment
were governed by a collective bargaining agreement between IAMAW and TWA. The work performed by these 1,100 employees under the terms of the IAMAWTWA agreement included all maintenance, refurbishing, and alteration of buildings, and new construction where the amount involved was less than $10,000; maintenance of roads and grounds; operation and maintenance of drawbridges, water and sewage plant, base heat plant, base air-conditioning systems, and electrical power distribution system; operation and maintenance of heavy equipment (mobile cranes, road-graders, bull-dozers and the like) and automotive equipment; ordering, receiving, stocking and distribution of all supplies for the base; and similar functions.
5. The current collective bargaining agreement between IAMAW and TWA was entered into on January 28, 1970 and is to "remain in full force and effect to and including December 31, 1971. ..." It is a company-wide agreement covering a contract unit of mechanical and related employees of which the KSC base support operation is a part. The applicability of the IAMAW-TWA agreement to TWA's operation for NASA at KSC is specified in Article II (d), pp. 6–7, of that agreement as follows: "'KSC' or 'KSC operation, as used in this Agreement, is defined as the Merritt Island, Florida area where the Company performs work under its Base Support Services Contract No. NAS10-1242 with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration."
The KSC operation was first brought within the coverage of the IAMAW-TWA agreement by a supplemental agreement entered into on February 17, 1964 which, with certain modifications extended the coverage of the January 24, 1964 IAMAW-TWA agreement to KSC.
The subordinate units IAMAW which aid in administering the IAMAW-TWA agreement at KSC are District Lodge 142 and Local Lodge 773.
The current IAMAW-TWA agreement is enclosed herewith as exhibit 1.
6. At KSC, separate and distinct from the base support services performed by TWA for NASA, Boeing performs services for NASA under the Apollo V stage contract. These services comprise launch support of the missile. The work embraces the swing arms, high pressure gas system connections, and electrical connections to Saturn V rocket. About 340 nonsupervisory employees are engaged in this work. These 340 employees work in the vehicle assembly building and launch pad.
7. The 340 employees working for Boeing to provide the launch support services are represented in collective bargaining by IAMAW and its Banana River Lodge 2061, and the terms of their employment are governed by a collective bargaining agreement between Boeing and the IAMAW and those of its lodges representing Boeing employees. The current collective bargaining agreement between Boeing and IAMAW is for a term from October 2, 1968 through October 1, 1971.
The IAMAW-Boeing agreement is company-wide in scope and covers three separate units (Seattle-Renton unit, Atlantic Missile Test Section unit, and Wichita unit), known as Primary Locations, and additional operations located away from a Primary Location designated by Boeing as a Remote Location of a particular Primary Location.
The applicability of the IAMAW-Boeing agreement to Boeing's KSC operation under the Apollo V stage contract is specified in sections 1.1 and 1.1 (b) of that agreement, pp. 11–13, which read in part as follows:
Section 1.1 Units covered.
The Company recognizes the Union as the exclusive bargaining agent for all employees covered by this Agreement, as follows:
1.1 (b) Atlantic Missile Test Section Unit. Those employees in the collective bargaining unit that was in National Labor Relations Board Case No. 10-RC-3299 and now consisting of:
1.1(b) (1) All production and maintenance employees in Brevard County in the State of Florida, employed by the Company. ... The NLRB certification identified in the agreement was issued on November 25, 1955. The subordinate units of the IAMAW which aid in the administration of IAMAW-Boeing agreement at KSC are District Lodge 166 and Local Lodge 2061.
The current IAMAW-Boeing agreement is enclosed herewith as exhibit 2, and a copy of the November 25, 1955 NLRB certification as exhibit 3.
8. The wages and fringe benefits provided by the current IAMAW-TWA agreement are substantially higher than those provided by the current IAMAW-Boeing agreement.
9. Under date if June 30, 1970, NASA issued Request for Proposal No. 2-370-0 (RFP) soliciting proposals for the performance of essentially the same base support services at KSC as were then being performed by TWA. The solicited services were to be performed under a cost-plus-award-fee type contract for a one-year period commencing February 1, 1971, with options in NASA to extend the contract for successive one-year periods.
10. The RFP required offerors to submit basic proposals based on specified numbers of personnel in various classifications, plus such additional staffing as the offeror deemed appropriate. Each offeror was required to explain, in depth, how it proposed to obtain competent personnel to staff the effort, including statements as to its plans regarding the employment of incumbent workers and its understanding of the impact that existing collective bargaining agreements covering such employees would have on its assumption of contract responsibilities. In addition, offerors were required to provide details concerning proposed subcontract arrangements.
11. On July 22, 1970, NASA held a conference at KSC for the purpose of receiving and answering written questions concerning the RFP requirements. Under date of July 31, 1970, NASA furnished to all prospective offerors a written transcript of the proceeding. Question 56 and the response thereto established guidelines for competition in respect of wage rates and fringe benefits applicable to the organized elements of the incumbent work force operating under collective bargaining agreements. Question 56 and the response thereto reads in full as follows:
Question 56: 1. Is it NASA's opinion that successful bidders will be required to assume employee representation by incumbent unions?
2. (a) If the answer to Question 1 is "yes," is the basis for this opinion "no significant change in work scope"?
(b) If the answer to Question 1 is “no," is the basis for this opinion “a significant change in work scope"?
3. If the answer to Question 1 is "yes," does NASA KSC plant to provide contents of the current union agreement as well as specific employee rates and benefits costs to enable bidder to submit competitive bids?
Answer: 1. The NLRB has held that when an employer assumes the operations of another employer without change in employees, jobs or methods, the successoremployer is obligated to bargain with the Union before changing wages and other conditions of employment. Under a recent series of cases, the NLRB has held that the successor-employer must assume the predecessor's collective bargaining agreement. It is NASA's position that the offerors make themselves familiar with the NLRB cases covering this issue, namely, The William J. Burns International Detective Agency, Inc., 74 LRRM 1098; Chemrock Corp., 58 LRRM 1582; John Wiley & Sons vs. Livingston, U'.S. Sup. Ct. 55 LRRM 2769.
2. The offeror will have to apply the NLRB's reasoning in the previously mentioned cases to the scope of the RFP in relation to method in which the work has been performed and to its own intended mode of operation.
3. It is not our policy to supply any offerors with any copies of labor agreements covering units of employees coming within the scope of the RFP.*
13. TIVA, Boeing, and five others submitted proposals in response to NASA's RFP. TWA and three other offerors based their computation of labor cost on the wage rates and fringe benefits established by the existing collective bargaining agreement between TWA and IAMAW applicable to the incumbent work force providing base support services at KSC. On the other hand, Boeing based its computation of labor cost on the substantially lower wage rates and fringe benefits provided by the collective bargaining agreement between Boeing and IAMAW, and which did not cover the incumbent work force providing base support seryices at KSC. As a result, Boeing's proposal was based on a computation of labor cost significantly inferior to the benefits presently enjoyed by the incumbent work force arrived at hy collective bargaining.
16. On November 23, 1970, NASA announced that it “has selected the Boeing Company, Seattle, Washington, for negotiations leading to an award of a contract to provide installation and technical support services at John F. Kennedy Space Center, Florida.” This announcement is enclosed herewith as exhibit 4.
17. On January 6, 1971, NASA made a detailed explanation of the basis of its selection of Boeing in a letter to the Comptroller General of the United States. This letter and the exhibits attached to it are enclosed herewith as exhibit 5.
*However, after the conference, we are advised by the union's International Offices that they have authorized their local unions to furnish copies to proposers upon request.