Blue Ribbon Products Co., Inc., et al.

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsAug 4, 1953

106 N.L.R.B. 562 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

56 2 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD BLUE RIBBON PRODUCTS CO., INC., ET AL.1 and WARE- HOUSE UNION, LOCAL 12, INTERNATIONAL BROTHER- HOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN & HELPERS OF AMERICA, AFL, Petitioner. Cases Nos. 20-RC-2170, 2175, 2178, 2181, 2182, 2185, 2187, 2188, 2190, 2192, 2193, and 2198. August 4, 1953 DECISION AND ORDER Upon petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before David Karasick, 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 Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel. [Members Murdock, Styles, and Peterson] . Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds: 1. The Employers are engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain employees of each of the Employers.2 3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the representation of employees of the Employers within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, for the following reasons: The Petitioner seeks 12 single employer units of warehouse and production employees employed by the Employers,3 ex- cluding office clerical employees, truckdrivers, salesmen, professional employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. The 12 Employers, all of whom are members of 1The following Employers are involved in this proceeding: Blue Ribbon Products Co., Inc., Case No. 20-RC-2170; Dohrmann Hotel Supply Co. Case No 20-RC-2175; Carpenter Paper Co., Case No. 20-RC-2178; Reid Murdock, Case No. 20-RC- 2181; American Chain & Cable Co., Inc., Case No 20-RC-2182; Seiberling Rubber Co , Ltd., Case No. 20-RC-2185; Traders Distributing Co , Case No. 20-RC-2187; The Arabol Manufacturing Co., Case No. 20-RC-2188; California Barrel Co, Ltd., Case No. 20-RC- 2190; Sloss & Brittain, Case No. 20-RC-2192; San Francisco Warehouse Co , Case No. 20-RC-2193; and Incandescent Supply Co., Case No 20-RC-2198. Petitions for the following member firms were withdrawn at the request of the Peti- tioner: Bridge Beach & Co , Case No. 20-RC-2179; Construction Device Co., Case No 20-RC-2183; State Terminal Co., Ltd., Case No. 20-RC-2186; Guittard Chocolate Company, Case No. 20-RC-2189; Los Angeles Soap Company, Case No. 20-RC-2194; Minnesota Min- ning and Manufacturing Co., Case No. 20-RC-2196; S. H. Tyler ,& Son, Case No 20-RC- 2197; and George W Casewell Co., Case No. 20-RC-2200. Alexander-Balart Co , Case No. 20-RC-2191 was severed by the hearing officer and referred to the Regional director for separate hearing Smith-Lynden & Co., Case No. 20-RC-2177 was severed on jurisdictional grounds. 2International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union, Local No 6, herein called Local 6, was permitted to intervene. 3In 7 petitions, the Petitioner requests single employer urits of warehouse and production employees In the other 5 petitions the Petitioner requests single employer units of ware- house employees. These employees are the same as those embraced in the historical multi- employer unit hereinafter discussed 106 NLRB No. 94. BLUE RIBBON PRODUCTS CO., INC., ET AL. 563 the Distributors Association of Northern California, herein called the Association, and the Associations agree with the Petitioner that the separate employer units are appropriate. The Intervenor, Local 6, on the other hand, contends that such units are inappropriate because the Employers in question have not evinced an unequivocal intention to abandon their 15-year pattern of multiemployer bargaining and to pursue, instead, an individual course of action with respect to their labor relations. The Association , a California corporation , was organized in 1937 for the express purpose of representing employers in the San Francisco Bay area who employ warehouse personnel in their dealings with Local 6. In addition to negotiating contracts and handling grievances and arbitration matters for its members, the Association also handles wage-hour problems, furnishes personnel advice, and collects and disseminates statistical information. Its total membership at the time of the hearing was approximately 170 employers engaged in 22 distinct types of industries.5 Approximately 137 of these em- ployers have been represented by the Association in a so-called Local 6 Unite for the purpose of collective bargaining with Local 6. Included in this employer group have been the 12 Employers involved in this proceeding. The Association also represents about 25 employers for whom it bargains with Warehousemen's Union, Local 860, and 6 employers for whom it bargains with Warehousemen's Union, Local 853.' In addition, the Association has 3 member- firms who have no collective-bargaining relationship with any labor union. There are some 4,000 employees in the Local 6 Unit, of whom about 200 are employed by the 12 Employers. Since 1938 the Association and Local 6 have negotiated successive collective-bargaining agreements on a multiemployer basis. The last master contract, which was executed in 1947, was extended on April 4, 1950, and expired on May 31, 1953. At the time of the hearing, negotiations for a new contract with the Intervenor were in progress. Following the filing of the petitions herein, each of the 12 Employers submitted to the Association the following form letter of resignation prepared by the Association: 4Distributors Association of Northern California was permitted to intervene on behalf of the Association. It also represents in these proceedings, by its counsel, all employees other than Blue Ribbon Products Co , Inc 5 The employer-members of the Association are engaged in a variety of businesses. including public warehousing, wholesale grocers, coffee roasting, wholesale hardware, rubber, electrical distribution, milling, liquor, drugs and dry goods, ice and cold storage, manufacturing, and processing. As a minimal requirement for membership in the Association, the employer must engage in some form of warehouse operations 6 The Local 6 Unit is the largest and oldest bargaining unit in the Association 7The Association also maintains bargaining relations with 15 other labor organizations on behalf of approximately 50 percent of its employer-members for their nonwarehouse person- nel 322615 0 - 54 - 37 564 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD This is to advise you that effective immediately we hereby resign from your local 6 ILWU employer bargain- ing unit. We no longer desire you to represent us in any collective bargaining whatsoever with Local 6 ILWU. Any previous authority to that effect is hereby revoked and terminated. We do, however, desire to remain members of the Association and to have you represent us in collective bargaining matters in all other respects. The Petitioner, the Employers, and the Association contend that the letters of resignation unconditionally and unequivocally express the Employers ' desire to cease participation in and affiliation with the Local 6 bargaining unit and, notwithstanding their retention of membership in the Association , manifest their intent to pursue an individual course of action with respect to labor relations. As indicated above, Local 6 takes a contrary position and further urges that the record reveals that the Employers in fact have no intention of pursuing an individual course of action. We need not determine whether the resignations themselves amount to an unequivocal abandonment of group bargaining because it is clear from the evidence that these resignations were merely intended to support the petitions for single- employer elections in order to determine whether the Associa- tion should continue to represent the 12 Employers in the historical multiemployer unit. Thus, the Employers admit, in effect, that if Local 6 wins any of the elections, the Associa- tion would continue to represent them in collective bargaining in the Local 6 multiemployer unit. J. Hart Clinton, general counsel for the Association and counsel for 11 of the 12 Employers gave similar testimony regarding the intentions of the Employer and the Association.8 8 Thus, on cross- examination, Mr. Clinton testified as follows: Q. In so far as the employers could control the situation, I take it, the intent and purpose of both these individual employers, so far as you know, and the Association is that when this proceeding is over the Association will represent the various employers in collective bargaining with whatever union should be designated at the conclusion of this proceeding. A. That is right. There are two possibilities . . if the petitions should be favorably allowed by the Board and an election is held and Local 12 [the Petitioner] should win, say, two or more of the elections, in the interest, or following out the policy of the Board, we would probably try to bargain a group contract with Local 12. Similarly, if Local 6 should win such election, or if the petitions should be dismissed, then we would endeavor to bring them back under the master contract with Local 6 Q. Well, when all is said and done, apparently, what is going to happen, as near as anybody can now tell, will not be individual bargaining by these employers, but some form of multi-employer bargaining" A That is correct. Most of our members, based upon their experience with the Association are multi-employer or Association minded; and the primary reason they are in the Association is to have us represent them in group bargaining. THE STEEL PRODUCTS ENGINEERING COMPANY 565 In these circumstances , we find that the Employers have not clearly and unequivocally evinced an intention henceforth to pursue a course of individual action with respect to their labor relations . For this reason , we find that the bargaining history on a multiemployer basis is controlling in deter- mining the appropriate unit .9 As single employer units are too limited in scope, we shall grant Local 6's motion .to dismiss the petitions. [The Board dismissed the petitioner.] 9 Washington Hardware Company, 95 NLRB 1001 ; Carnation Company, 90 NLRB 1808; cf. Atlas Storage Division , P & V Atlas Industrial Center , Inc., 100 NLRB 1323. The Board's decision in Construction Device Company , Case No . 20-RC-1805 . not reported in printed volumes of Board decisions ,, upon which the Employers and the Association rely, is inappli- cable. THE STEEL PRODUCTS ENGINEERING COMPANYand UNITED AUTOMOBILE , AIRCRAFT AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLE- MENT WORKERS OF AMERICA , UAW-CIO, Petitioner and ASSOCIATION OF STEEL PRODUCTS ENGINEERING COM- PANY EMPLOYEES , INC. Case No . 9-RC-1690 . August 5, 1953 DECISION AND DIRECTION On September 3, 1952, pursuant toa stipulation for certifica- tion upon consent election , an election by secret ballot was con- ducted under the direction and supervison of the Regional Di- rector for the Ninth Region, among the employees in the stipulated unit . Upon the completion of the election , a tally of ballots was furnished the parties . The tally reveals that of ap- proximately 950 eligible voters, 803 cast valid ballots , of which 390 were cast for the Petitioner , 396 were cast for the Inter- venor , and 17 were against both participating labor organiza- tions . Forty-six ballots were challenged and 2 were void. No objections to the conduct of the election were filed within the time provided therefor. As the challenged ballots were sufficient in number to affect the results of the election , the Regional Director , pursuant to the Board ' s Rules and Regulations , conducted an investigation and, on October 1, 1952, issued and served upon the parties a report on challenged ballots . In his report , the Regional Direc- tor recommended that the challenges to the ballots of Walter Howard, Norman Endter, Kenneth Walter, John Foster, and Andrew Gibson be sustained , and that a hearing be held concern- ing the eligibility status of the voters listed by him in groups I, III, and IV, as set forth in the report . No exceptions were filed to the Regional Director ' s recommendations contained therein. 106 NLRB No. 90.