Brannan Sand & Gravel

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 22, 1992

308 N.L.R.B. 922 (N.L.R.B. 1992)

922
308 NLRB No. 136
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Brannan Sand & Gravel and Local 13, Inter-
national Brotherhood of Teamsters, AFL–CIO,
Petitioner. Case 27–RM–619
September 22, 1992
ORDER DENYING REVIEW
BY MEMBERS DEVANEY, OVIATT, AND
RAUDABAUGH
The Board has delegated its authority in this pro-
ceeding to a three-member panel. The Employer’s re-
quest for review of the Regional Director’s administra-
tive dismissal of the instant petition is denied as it
raises no substantial issues warranting reversal of the
Regional Director’s action. The dismissal of the peti-
tion is affirmed, but on the following grounds.
The Union was certified as the exclusive bargaining
representative of a unit of drivers, oilers, and tiremen
on November 15, 1990. The parties apparently en-
gaged in numerous collective-bargaining sessions from
that time until sometime in the spring of 1992. On July
9, 1992, a complaint issued in Cases 27–CA–12223
and 27–CA–12223–2, alleging, inter alia, that the Em-
ployer violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act by
refusing to recognize and bargain with the Union by
refusing to meet, by unilaterally making changes in the
unit employees’ health insurance plan, and by direct
dealing with the employees regarding their wages and
working conditions.
The Employer filed the instant petition on the same
day. On July 21, 1992, after an administrative inves-
tigation, the Regional Director dismissed the petition
on the ground that the Employer’s objective consider-
ations were insufficient to establish a good-faith doubt
of the Union’s majority status.
In denying review, however, we do not find it nec-
essary or appropriate to consider the grounds relied on
by the Regional Director for his dismissal, or the ex-
ceptions taken by the Employer, as we find that the
issues presented by this RM petition as to the Employ-
er’s objective considerations are inextricably inter-
twined with those presented in the pending unfair labor
practice cases. Thus, if the General Counsel prevails
on the 8(a)(5) aspect of that complaint, the Union will
be found to have been the majority representative at
the time of the filing of the instant petition, and an af-
firmative bargaining order will result which will pre-
clude the existence of a question concerning represen-
tation. Big Three Industries, 201 NLRB 197 (1973).
Accordingly, the Board affirms the Regional Direc-
tor’s dismissal solely on the foregoing grounds, with-
out passing on the merits of any other contentions, but
subject to the reinstatement of the petition after dis-
position of the pending unfair labor practice cases.