Cargo Packers, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 3, 1954

109 N.L.R.B. 1184 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

1184 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
CARGO PACKERS, INCORPORATED and GENERAL MISCELLANEOUS WORK-
ERS UNION, LOCAL No . 142, AFFILIATED WITH DISTILLERY, RECTI-
FYING & WINE WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION OF AMERICA, AFL,
PETITIONER . Case No. 2-IfC-6576. September 3, 1954
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 Robert Hurt, hearing officer.
The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prej-
udicial error and are hereby affirmed.
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 involved claim to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. The Employer operates a military packing and packaging busi-
ness at 315 West 12th Street and 73 Rutledge Street, in New York
City. The Petitioner seeks to represent as a residual unit those
employees at 73 Rutledge Street who, the Petitioner asserts, are not
covered by a contract between the Employer and the Intervenor, Local
,814, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse-
men and Helpers of America, AFL. The Employer and the Inter-
venor assert the current contract as a bar to this proceeding, alleging
that it covers all employees of the Employer. The Petitioner argues
that the existing contract is not a bar because its benefits do not extend
to the requested employees.
Since 1948, the Employer has bargained with the Intervenor. The
most recent contract dated June 30, 1953, was effective until March 31,
1954, and provided for automatic renewal thereafter from year to year
unless written notice of desire to modify or terminate was given not
less than 60 days prior to any termination date. The Intervenor gave
such notice on February 9, 1954. As the Employer contends, this
notice was untimely and did not forestall the automatic renewal of
the contract.
The contract contains no general recognition clause but opens with
the following paragraphs :
WHEREAS, the parties hereto have been in contractual relation-
ship with respect to wages, hours and other working conditions
of members of the Union employed by the Employer, and
WHEREAS, the parties desire to continue such relationship;
Now, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and
conditions herein contained, the parties hereto hereby agree as
follows :
109 NLRB No. 170.
CARGO PACKERS, INCORPORATED 1185
The contract states that a schedule of all names, job classifications, and
rates of pay of employees covered by the agreement is annexed. How-
ever, neither the Employer nor the Intervenor was able to produce
this appendix.
Among other things, the contract provides that "each member of
the Union who is employed for 130 days in a calendar year shall
receive one (1) week's vacation with pay in such calendar year." The
seniority and grievance provisions also relate solely to "members of
the Union." In the contract, the Employer agrees to contribute $9.50
per month to the Teamsters' welfare fund for each union member, who
should as a result thereof receive insurance and hospitalization bene-
fits; to employ only members of the Union who are paid-up members
or those nonmembers who would agree to become members of the
Union after 6 months; and to pay the nonmembers not less than $1.10
per hour.
Employer's president, in testifying at the hearing, admitted that
he had not complied with the union-security provision relation to the
employment of nonmembers; that he did not require them to agree to
become members of the intervening union; that at the end of 6 months'
employment, many employees were not required to become members;
and that he could not state that any demand had been made by the
Intervenor that these employees become members. He further testi-
fied that he did not pay the minimum wage specified in the contract
to employees who were not union members and that discharge of
nonmembers are not reported to the Intervenor. Although the record
shows that 18 female employees during the period from June 2, 1953,
to May 18, 1954, had employment in excess of 6 months, and that some
female employees had been employed as long as 21/2 years, the presi-
dent stated that no female employee had been paid the minimum wage
nor received a paid vacation. As he has not paid into the Teamsters'
welfare fund on their behalf, they have also not received hospital or
insurance benefits.
In view of the above circumstance, it is clear that the contract has
not been applied equally to all employees, and regardless of whether
the contract may purport to cover all employees, as contended by the
Employer and the Intervenor, the Intervenor has never in fact repre-
sented all the employees equally and without discrimination between
union and nonunion members.
Accordingly, we find that the contract is a member-only contract
and cannot serve as a bar to the present proceeding.'
We find that a question affecting commerce exists concerning the
representation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of
Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
3 See Liggett & Myers Tobacco Company, 98 NLRB 1300; cf. Queensbrook News Co., Inc.,
98 NLRB 84; Taxicabs of Cincinnati, Inc., 82 NLRB 664.
1186 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
4. As indicated above, the Employer operates 2 plants , 1 in Man-
hattan and 1 in Brooklyn . The Petitioner originally requested a unit
of all unrepresented employees at the Brooklyn plant . At the hear-
ing, the Petitioner amended its petition to request as alternate units
(1) all employees at both plants of the Employer ; ( 2) all unrepre-
sented employees at both plants; or (3) all packaging employees at
one or both plants.
Employees at both plants are engaged in military packing and
packaging and transfers are made between the two plants . One office
located in Brooklyn handles the administration of both plants, and all
hiring is done there except in emergencies . Although the Manhattan
plant has its separate foreman , he is immediately supervised by the
general manager of both plants who directs the plant operations of the
Brooklyn plant. -
It appears from the circumstances of this case , that the skills and
duties of all employees are similar and that employees of both plants
have interests in common . We find, therefore, that the appropriate
unit should include all employees at both plants.
We find that all employees at the Employer 's operations located at
315 West 12th Street ( Manhattan ) and 73 Rutledge Street ( Brook-
lyn), New York City, excluding all office clericals, guards and super-
visors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of
the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
MEMBERS MURDOCK and RODGERS took no part in the consideration of
the above Decision and Direction of Election.
CALCASIEU PAPER COMPANY, INC. AND SOUTHERN INDUSTRIES COM-
PANY , PETITIONER and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF PAPER
MAKERS, AFL AND INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF PULP, SUL-
PHITE AND PAPER MILL WORKERS, AFL. Case No. 15 RM- 5.
September 7,1954
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 Paul A. Cassady, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from
prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
Act.
109 NLRB No. 168.