McDonald's of Canoga Park Calif., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 23, 1966

162 N.L.R.B. 367 (N.L.R.B. 1966)

McDONALD'S OF CANOGA PARK CALIF. - 367
McDonald 's of Canoga Park Calif., Inc.' and Joint Council of the
Brotherhood of Independent Workers, affiliated with the Na-
tional Federation of Independent Unions, Petitioner.' Case 31-
RC-163. December 23, 1966
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, a hearing was held before Hearing Offi-
cer Ronald M. Telanoff of the National Labor Relations Board. The
Hearing Officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudi-
cial error and are hereby affirmed.2
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
Act and it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert jurisdic-
tion herein.
2. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of certain employees of the Employer within the meaning of
Sections 9(c) (1) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act, for the reasons indi-
cated below.
The record indicates that the Petitioner is composed of dues-paying
members who receive notice of membership meetings which are held
once a month, vote on membership dues, and have, on at least one
occasion, participated in the bargaining process. Members who are
over 21 years of age are eligible to hold office in the organization if
they have been a member thereof for a period of 4 years and have
attended at least 50 percent of all regular meetings.3 Further, the rec-
ord shows, and the Employer does not contend otherwise, that the
Petitioner has been certified by the Board as a representative of
employees in at least two consent-election cases and has collective-
bargaining agreements with at least 10 employers.
Nevertheless, the Employer contends, among other things, that the
Petitioner is, in effect, a labor consultant in the service of employers,
and is not, therefore, a bona fide labor organization capable of deal-
ing at arm's length with employers for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining. In this respect, the record does indicate an extraordinary
lack of candor in the testimony of the Petitioner's principal officers
with respect to the affairs of the organization. Coy Jensen, president,
1 The parties ' names appear as amended at the hearing
2 The Hearing Officer's ruling partially revoking the subpoena duces tecum issued at
the request of the Employer is affirmed. We find that the information sought thereby is
cumulative in nature and would not tend, in any event , to affect our Decision herein
S As the first regular election under the Petitioner 's bylaws will not be held until April
1969, members not then eligible to run for elective office must wait until 1973, when the
next regularly scheduled election will take place.
162 NLRB No. 29.
368 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and A. G. Junior Beck, vice president, were unable to agree on the
method of compensation or on the amounts paid to the organization's
officers and employees. They had no idea of the size of their member-
ship. Beck testified that he did not know if he was elected by the gen-
eral membership as required by the organization's bylaws. Joseph
Hagler, recording secretary, who is employed elsewhere as a part-time
business consultant and adminstrative assistant, testified that he heard
his predecessor had resigned and he was elected for a term of 3 or 4
years : "I think it is 3 or 4 years. I don't know."
The record also shows that William Anderson, a member of the
Petitioner's executive board, is an employee of Robert Anderson and
Sons Company. This company has negotiated a collective-bargaining
agreement with the Petitioner. The Anderson Company is owned by
Robert Anderson, Sr., William's father. When asked why Robert
Anderson, Sr., had signed the Petitioner's bylaws as a member of the
"board of directors," Jensen denied that Anderson had any connec-
tion with the Petitioner and stated : "Well, everyone was signing the
bylaws that was in the office, so he signed them also." Jensen also
testified that Larry Bunch was a member of the Petitioner's executive
board while employed by the Bunch Corporation and that shortly
after he resigned from the board he became a "[construction] con-
tractor" and signed a collective-bargaining agreement with the Peti-
tioner on behalf of the Bunch Corporation.
As the Board has stated,4 collective bargaining is a two-way propo-,
sition; the employer must be present to protect his business interests,
and the union "must be there with the single-minded purpose of pro-
tecting and advancing the interests of the employees who have selected
it as their bargaining agent, and there must be no ulterior purpose."
The facts summarized above are such as to create a substantial doubt
as to whether the Petitioner does act or is competent to act as an
employee bargaining representative in accordance with that standard.
The Petitioner, by reason of its conduct at the hearing, has pre-
cluded us from resolving that doubt. As stated above, the Petitioner's
principal officers exhibited an extraordinary lack of candor with
respect to the control and affairs of the organization; the Petitioner
had opportunity at two hearings to present meaningful evidence on
these matters, but failed to do so. Accordingly, we shall dismiss the
petition.
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
* Bausch & Lomb Optical Company , 108 NLRB 1555, 1559. See also Oregon Teamsters'
Security Plan Ofce, 119 NLRB 207 , 211, and General Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse-
men and Helpers of America, Local 249, 139 NLRB 605, 607