Associated Transport, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsMar 28, 1961

130 N.L.R.B. 1604 (N.L.R.B. 1961)

1604 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Associated Transport , Inc. and Chauffeurs, Teamsters and Help- ers Local Union No. 621 , affiliated with International Brother- hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers,. Petitioner. Case No. 10-RC-4830. March 28, 1961 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before John B. Luke, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Members Rodgers, Leedom, and Fanning]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 2. The labor organizations named below claim to represent certain- employees of the Employer. 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the represents-. tion of certain employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 4. Petitioner seeks a unit of mechanics, helpers, and stockroom clerks at 10 southern terminals of the Employer. The mechanical'. employees at two of these (Chattanooga and Nashville) are already represented by sister locals of Petitioner, and alternately Petitioner requests a unit eliminating these two. One of the ten terminals, Ashe- ville, presently has no mechanical employees. The mechanical em- ployees at the remaining 7 of these southern terminals-Atlanta, Roanoke, Greenville, Charlotte, Bristol, Knoxville, and Burlington, North Carolina-are presently represented by Intervenor, Interna- tional Association of Machinists, which has a master contract with the., Employer covering at least 24 of the 32 terminals employing mechani- cal personnel. Testimony at the hearing by the Employer indicates that it divides its operation into a, northern and southern division, with a vice presi- dent in charge of each, and that in its southern division it not only in- cludes the above 10 southern terminals, but Richmond, Baltimore, and. Washington, D.C., as well. Its remaining terminals are located in Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Rhode. Island, and Massachusetts. The record shows that the IAM repre- sents the mechanical personnel at approximately three-fourths of the. northern division terminals, the Teamsters representing those at Waterbury and Hartford, Connecticut, Scranton, Pennsylvania, and 130 NLRB No. 167. ASSOCIATED TRANSPORT, INC. 1605 Springfield, Massachusetts. The IAM also represents the mechanical personnel at Baltimore, Washington, and Richmond in the southern, division. Intervenor urges that a definable multiplant bargaining unit has been established by virtue of the master contract existing between the Employer and it since 1945, and therefore the Board should not find appropriate a unit "short of the one covered by the master agreement." The Employer takes no position on unit. The master contract between the Employer and the Intervenor covers all employees engaged in mechanical repairs in terms of all shops and garages of the 'Company, without naming them. It is not companywide or systemwide because it excludes "points" where the Employer has a contract with another union. The current master contract was executed in 1956. At the time of hearing in October, it was nearing its January 15, 1961, expiration date and has not been urged as a bar. Although a comprehensive bargaining agreement, it specifically provides that the scheduled workweek, wage rates, night- shift differentials, holidays, vacations, seniority "by classification," and individual reclassification are to be negotiated "in the area in which the shop or garage is located." In support of its position that these local negotiations are not significant on the unit question because more than one shop may participate and the pattern of. participation may vary, the IAM put in evidence a 1947 wage adjustment covering Roanoke, Bristol, and Knoxville (constituting only 3 of the 10 south- ern terminals here sought) as well as 4 separate agreements expiring January 15, 1961, negotiated individually for Linden (Newark), Bal- timore, Richmond, and Washington. On its part the Petitioner put in evidence a supplemental agreement between the Employer and the IAM expiring January 15, 1961, covering wages and other local mat- ters at nine southern terminals, in support of its petition for these terminals plus Chattanooga.' It also put in evidence a March 1960 pension agreement executed as an amendment to the master contract, which makes provision in a separate paragraph "for those employees covered under the Supplement of the Southern Terminals, last dated December 24, 1958." The last two documents (plus the current master contract) were also in evidence in Case No. 10-RC-4677,2 where the same Petitioner sought a unit limited to one of the southern terminals. The Board, on July 1, 1960, dismissed that petition without passing on the company- wide contention made by the same Intervenor. It found the single These nine included the seven terminals now represented by the IAM, plus Asheville and Nashville. The record here shows that the Nashville mechanics are now represented by the Teamsters, although when this change occurred does not appear. Likewise the record does not show when the Teamsters became the representative of the Chattanooga mechanics , or whether the latter had ever been negotiated for by the IAM. s Not published in NLRB volumes. 1606 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD unit inappropriate, noting that "the southern terminals have for ap- proximately 10 years been treated as a geographical group with re- spect to wages and matters of local importance." The record here contains no testimony concerning the manner of negotiating the master contracts, of which there have been three : 1945, 1951, and 19561 Although there is testimony that the Employer would insist that provisions of the master agreement prevail should a conflict arise between it and a local supplement, the master contract itself has no such provision.4 In this connection we note that in addi- tion to detailed coverage of wages, reclassification, hours, overtime pay, holidays, and vacations, the so-called southern supplement in evidence provides for its renewal, if the parties desire, beyond the January 15, 1961, term of the master contract and also contains a provision for a 30-day trial period for new employees who may be discharged without recourse to the "grievance and/or arbitration" procedure of the master contract. These two features tend to indicate that at least for these southern terminals represented by the Inter- venor greater autonomy exists than the master contract envisages. We note also that the master contract has no provision that local supplements shall be approved centrally by the Union and the Employer.5 We conclude that as to the terminals covered by the so-called south- ern supplements the bargaining reveals a group distinction setting them apart from the remaining terminals covered by the master con- tract.' Thus, on this record, we find that bargaining supplemental to the master contract, over a period of approximately 10 years,' cover- ing the southern terminals here involved, has established a definable multiplant unit which is appropriate for collective bargaining.8 It appears that this bargaining has never included the Baltimore, Wash- ington, and Richmond terminals, which the Employer administra- tively considers a part of its southern division. It does not now include the Nashville employees who are represented by another local of the Petitioner, nor, so far as appears, has it included the Chattanooga em- 8 Employer testified that negotiations for local supplements are normally conducted by a committee from the terminal in question , and that for "the past several years the negotiations for the terminals at Atlanta , Burlington , Roanoke, Greenville , Charlotte, Bristol and Knoxville have been conducted by committees from those various points" together with an International representative of the Union. 4 Compare The Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company, 105 NLRB 674, 675. 5 Compare General Motors Corporation, Cadillao Motor Car Division, 120 NLRB 1215, 1219. 6 We recently dismissed a petition for a similar unit of mechanics limited to the Syracuse terminal noting that the record contained no contention that its identity as a single-plant unit had been preserved in the face of multiplant bargaining. See Case No. 3-RC-2472 of February 17, 1961 , not published in NLRB volumes. As requested by Intervenor , we hereby take official notice of said decision. 7 We take official notice of our finding as to the duration of this supplemental bargain- ing as expressed in our decision of July 3, 1960 , in the prior case, based upon the record therein. - 8 Compare Radio Corporation of America , 121 NLRB 633, 635. THE REX CORPORATION 1607 ployees also represented by another local of the Petitioner. The Peti- tioner's alternative unit request embraces a unit which is coextensive with the multiterminal unit as it now exists. In these circumstances, we shall direct an election in such a unit .9 We find that the following employees of the Employer constitute a unit appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. All mechanics, helpers, and stockroom clerks employed by the Em- ployer at its southern terminals located in Atlanta, Georgia, Burling- ton, North Carolina, Roanoke, Virginia, Greenville, South Carolina, Charlotte, North Carolina, Bristol, Virginia, and Knoxville, Tennes- see, excluding all other employees, professional employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] Q As the Asheville , North Carolina , terminal also sought presently has no mechanical employees , we do not include it. The Rex Corporation and District #38, International Associa- tion of Machinists, AFL-CIO. Case No. 1-CA-3070. March 29, 1961 DECISION AND ORDER On October 28, 1960, Trial Examiner Wellington A. Gillis issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had not engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint and recommending that the complaint be dismissed in its entirety, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the General Counsel and the Union filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and supporting briefs. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Members Rodgers, Leedom, and Fanning]. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter- mediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda- tions of the Trial Examiner. [The Board dismissed the complaint.] INTERMEDIATE REPORT STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon a charge filed on December 7, 1959, by District #38, International Associ- ation of Machinists , AFL-CIO, hereinafter referred to as the Union , the General 130 NLRB No. 164.