Quality Limestone Products, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 28, 1963

143 N.L.R.B. 589 (N.L.R.B. 1963)

QUALITY LIMESTONE PRODUCTS, INC. 589
Quality Limestone Products, Inc. and William Metzger and
Marvin Wilson , Petitioners and Teamsters Union Local 695
Halquist Lannon Stone Co. and Richard Murphy, Petitioner and
Teamsters Union Local 695. Cases Nos. 13-RD-510 and 13-RD-
536. June 28, 1963
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act,' hearings were held before Hymen Bear and William
D. Boetticher, hearing officers. The hearing officers' rulings made
at the hearings 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 Rodgers, Fanning, and Brown].
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 organization involved claims to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employers.'
3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employers within the meaning of Section
9(c) (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act for the reasons stated
below :
The Petitioners seek to decertify single-employer units of quarry
employees, excluding stonecutters, at Quality 3 and at Halquist. The
Employers also assert that single-employer units are appropriate.
The Union contends that only a multiemployer unit is appropriate.
The Union was certified in 1953 as the bargaining representative in
a single-employer unit of the inside quarry employees of Halquist,
excluding stonecutters. There has been no Board certification among
the employees of Quality' While the record does not indicate the
date on which each of these Employers joined "Wisconsin Dimension
1 By order of the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region, dated January 8, 1963,
the above-captioned cases were consolidated
2 The Petitioners assert that Drivers, Salesmen, Warehousemen, Milk Processors, Can-
nery, Dairy Employees, and Helpers Union, Local No. 695, affiliated with the International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, herein
called the Union, the currently recognized representative of the employees of Quality
Limestone Products, Inc., herein called Quality, and the certified and currently recog-
nized representative of the employees of Halquist Lannon Stone Company, herein called
Halquist, is no longer their representative as defined in Section 9(a) of the Act. The
name of the Union appears as corrected at the hearing.
3In view of our disposition herein, we do not reach the question whether single-plant
units or a multiplant unit of Quality employees is appropriate
4 On October 24, 1955, the Wisconsin Employment Relations Board issued a "Direction
of Referendum" for an "all-union agreement" between Quality and the Union. The em-
ployees voted unanimously in favor of such an agreement.
143 NLRB No. 62.
590 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Stone Industry, Inc.," 6 it is clear that both were members of that em-
ployer association as of August 1, 1957.11
The Association was formed by members of the quarry industry on
November 18, 1952, for the purpose, inter alia, of negotiating with
various unions. From its inception the Association, through a des-
ignated bargaining committee, negotiated three contracts with the
Union. The committee acted only for those members which author-
ized such representation, and each member signed separate but iden-
tical' contracts. Witnesses for the Employers gave conflicting testi-
mony concerning the extent to which the members were bound by
results of the committee's negotiations, some witnesses claiming each
company had a right to accept or reject any agreement reached. How-
ever, it appears that in practice none of the participating members
had rejected any such agreement. Furthermore, the minutes of the
Association reveal various resolutions by the group giving the com-
mittee certain authority to negotiate, including the following resolu-
tion which appears in the minutes of June 1959: 6
Further resolves that said Committee [Negotiations Committee
for the Teamsters Contract] be and it is hereby given full author-
ity to negotiate a contract with the Teamsters Union, which terms
shall not exceed the wage pattern and fringe benefits of the
Journeymen Stone Cutters Contract ... .
The last of the three contracts with this Union ran from 1959 to
1962. At the time of those negotiations the committee represented
approximately nine employers, including Quality and Halquist, and
individual contracts were again executed.9 Shortly thereafter, the
Association became inactive, although it was not dissolved, and the
committee did not function after 1959 except for a limited purpose.
On March 15, 1962, the Union sent a notice of its desire to reopen
the contract to all employers who had signed the 1959 contract. In
May 1962 seven employers, including Quality and Halquist, appointed
a bargaining committee composed of A. C. Halquist (of Halquist),
Lloyd Wolf (of Quality), and an official of another company as
alternate. On June 6, 1962, the Union was informed that these seven
companies were being represented by the bargaining committee.
Hereinafter referred to as the Association.
8 As of that date, there were 19 members of the Association, including these Employers.
7 Although the contracts were identical, the provisions were applicable to a particular
employer only insofar as they were pertinent. Thus, if an employer did not employ a
particular classification covered by the contract, the contract was not effective in that re-
spect as to that employer.
8In addition, the minutes of May 2, 1959, show that a motion was unanimously passed
naming a committee to "negotiate with Teamsters for Lannon-Sussex area and for those
who sign a delegation of authority . . . .' The record also includes a notice from the
Association to its members calling a meeting "to 'consider counter-proposals."
8 The Union also had individual contracts with other employers in the area, who adopted
the contract negotiated by the Association's committee but who were not members of the
Association or had not delegated bargaining authority to the committee.
QUALITY LIMESTONE PRODUCTS, INC. 591
Bargaining meetings were held between June 4 and June 25, 1962.
On the latter date, the Union rejected the committee's "last wage
offer" and the Employers refused the Union's request to discuss the
Union's demand for recognition as the representative of owner-
operator or "independent" truckdrivers. On June 29, picketing was
begun at Halquist, Quality, and a third company, not involved in this
proceeding, to secure recognition of the Union as the representative
of owner-drivers.
On August 22, 1962, three employers informed the employer com-
mittee that they were withdrawing from the bargaining group, and
the committee accepted the withdrawals on August 28. When the
Union was advised on September 6 of these withdrawals, it refused
to bargain in other than the multi-employer group. At no time has
Halquist or Quality attempted to withdraw the authority of the com-
mittee to bargain on its behalf or informed the committee or the
Union that it wished to do so.
From the above facts, and upon the entire record, it is clear, and
we find, that Quality and Halquist have bargained on a multiemployer
basis at all relevant times.1° Their conduct throughout indicates that
they evinced an unequivocal intent to be bound by group action, and,
as noted above, they have never taken any steps to adopt an individual
course of action prior to the position taken during the course of this
proceeding. Accordingly, we conclude that at all times the Employers
were engaged in group bargaining and their employees were part of
a multiemployer unit. The fluctuating membership of the multi-
employer group does not require a finding either that there was any
change in the essential character of the unit 11 or that the multi-
employer unit is rendered inappropriate.12 Nor does the retention by
participating employers of the right to approve or disapprove the
agreement reached require a different conclusion.13 Although the
Union was certified in a single-employer unit for the Halquist em-
ployees, it is clear and we find that inasmuch as the Employer and
the Union thereafter intended to and did engage in multiemployer
bargaining, the certified single-employer unit has been merged into
the overall multiemployer unit.14 Furthermore, contrary to the Em-
ployers' contention, we find nothing in the record which justifies a
finding either that the Union has abandoned the multiemployer unit
10 See Hoisting & Portable Engineers Local Union # 701 International Union of Operat-
ing Engineers, AFL-CIO ( Cascade Employers Association, Inc ), 141 NLRB 469; Belle-
ville Employing Printers, 122 NLRB 350, 353.
11 Cascade Employers Assn., supra.
12 grist Gradis, 121 NLRB 601 ; Puerto Rico Steamship Association, 116 NLRB 418, 421.
13 grist Gradis, supra, at p. 610; Belleville Employing Printers. 122 NLRB 350;
American Publishing Corporation, 121 NLRB 115.
14 Unvvac Division of Remington Rand Division of Sperry Rand Corporation, 137
NLRB 1232.
592 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
or that it is estopped from urging that only the multiemployer unit
is appropriate.15
Accordingly , we find that the single-employer units of employees
of Halquist and Quality are not appropriate , and we shall dismiss the
petitions herein.
[The Board dismissed the petitions.]
16 Cf. Scougal Rubber Mfg . Co., Inc., at al ., 126 NLRB 470 ; Neville Foundry Company,
Inc., 122 NLRB 1187. We note that the union conduct relied on by the Employers con-
cerned union attempts to represent groups not previously represented by it. Thus, it
sought a separate unit of one employer 's inside workers who had previously been repre-
sented by another union and attempted to engage in multiemployer bargaining for owner-
drivers but thereafter filed separate petitions for those drivers.
Douglas Aircraft Company, Inc. and United Automobile, Air-
craft & Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW-
CIO),1 Petitioner and International Association of Machinists,
District Lodge No . 1578.1 Case No. 21-R-2025. July 3, 1963
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION OF
CERTIFICATION
On February 18, 1944, after an election conducted pursuant to a
Decision and Direction of Elections,3 the Board issued a certification
of representatives in the above-entitled proceeding in which the UAW
was certified as the bargaining representative in the following unit :
All hourly paid production and maintenance employees of
Douglas Aircraft Company, Inc. (Long Beach Plant), Long
Beach, California, including leadmen, spot, flash, and seam
welders, department and plant clericals, tool liaison employees,
and 4-hour shift employees not employed at "feeder" plants, but
excluding timekeepers, "feeder" plant employees, detached ware-
house employees, school employees, plant protection employees,
safety department employees, time and motion study employees,
truck transportation department employees (external transporta-
tion department), oxyacetylene, oxyhydrogen, and electric are
welders, gas flame cutters, beginner welders, administrative em-
ployees, confidential employees, and all supervisory employees
with authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise
effect changes in the status of employees, or effectively recom-
mend such action.
i Hereinafter referred to as the UAW.
2 Hereinafter referred to as the IAM.
3 54 NLRB 67.
143 NLRB No. 63.