Reid Murdock Co., et al..

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 24, 1953

107 N.L.R.B. 155 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

REID MURDOCK CO., ET AL. 155
In view of the indefinite and brief nature of the Company's
Yuba City operation , and the insubstantial nature of the em-
ployees' tenure of employment , we believe that the expendi-
ture of the Board ' s funds to conduct an election in the em-
ployee group here sought to be represented is not warranted.?
We shall , accordingly , dismiss the petition.
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
2Cf Producers Rice Mill, Inc., 106 NLRB 119
REID MURDOCK CO., ET AL., and WAREHOUSE UNION
LOCAL 12, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF
TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND
HELPERS OF AMERICA, AFL, Petitioner and INTERNA-
TIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S AND WAREHOUSEMEN'S
UNION, LOCAL NO. 6. Cases Nos . 20-RC-2356, 20-RC-2357,
20-RC-2358 , 20-RC-2362, 20-RC-2365, and 20-RC-2371.
November 24, 1953
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
Upon petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before
Shirley N. Bingham, 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 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.
3. A 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.2
i The following Employers are involved in this proceeding: Reid Murdock Co., Case No.
20-RC-2356; The Arabol Manufacturing Co , Case No. 20-RC-2357; Traders Distributing Co.,
Case No 20-RC-2358; California Barrel Co., Ltd., Case No. 20-RC-2362; Sloss & Brittain,
Case No 20-RC-2365; and American Chain R. Cable Co., Inc., Case No. 20-RC-2371.
2Although the intervenor does not specifically urge contract bar in its brief, it indicated
at the hearing that a contract bar "may exist" because of an agreement between the Inter-
venor and Distributors Association of Northern California, herein called the Association,
dated June 11, 1953 However, a representative of the Association testified at the hearing
that the Association was not empowered to negotiate on behalf of the six Employers involved
in the present proceedings. Moreover, it is plain from the face of the contract that these
six Employers were not made parties to the June 11, 1953, agreement. In view of this testi-
mony by the Association's own official, we find no merit in the attempt by the intervenor to
rely on a so-called "escape period" in the Association's bylaws, nor do we find any other
basis for a contract-bar contention.
107 NLRB No. 53.
156 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
4. Appropriate units:
The Petitioner seeks 6 single-employer units of warehouse
employees employed by the Employers, excluding clerical
employees and supervisors as defined in the Act.' The 6
Employers agree with the Petitioner. The Intervenor contends
that only an associationwide unit is appropriate.
In a previous Board proceeding,4 to which each of the 6
Employers were parties, the Board found that certain letters
to the Association, submitted by them and by 6 other employers
not here involved, did not "clearly and unequivocally" evince
an intention henceforth to pursue a course of individual action
with respect to their labor relations, and dismissed the
petitions for single-employer units. In that case, the Employers
and the Association had contended that such letters manifested
a clear intent "to cease participation in and affiliation with
the Local 6 [the Intervenor here as well as in the previous
case] bargaining unit . . . notwithstanding their retention of
membership in the Association. . . . " After that Board
decision, which was issued on August 4, 1953, each of the
Employers, between August 10 and 24, 1953, submitted to the
Association separate resignations from membership in the
Association, which the latter accepted. At the hearing, 4 of the
Employers testified that they intended to bargain individually
if separate units were found appropriate. Two of the Em-
ployers, The Arabol Manufacturing Co. and California Barrel
Company, testified that they were now members of another
employer group (The San Francisco Employers Council), and
that they intended to have that Council represent them in the
future. Each of the 6 Employers made it clear that it had no
connection with the Association whatever.
The Intervenor contends, however, that the Employers'
resignations from the Association had the same effect as their
attempted withdrawals from the bargaining unit in the earlier
case . We do not agree. On the basis of the present record,
which in our opinion is clear, we are satis it ed that the six
Employers by their resignations from the Association between
August 10 to August 24, 1953, as distinguished from their
prior attempted withdrawal or "resignation" from the bargain-
ing unit, by their statements at the hearing in the instant
proceedings, and by their other affirmative -acts, evidenced an
unequivocal intention to abandon their former multiple-em-
ployer bargaining through the Association, and to pursue instead
other courses of action with respect to their labor relations.
As the Board stated in a decision just issued, "Whatever
reason it [the Employer] might have had for so doing is
3In American Chain & Cable Co., Inc., Case No 20-RC-2371, the Petitioner would include
the production employees in addition to the warehouse employees.
4Blue Ribbon Products Co., Inc., et al., 106 NLRB 562.
KENT PLASTICS CORPORATION 157
immaterial." 5 The latter holding is equally applicable here
as to the six Employers in question.
Accordingly, we find that the six single-employer units as
sought in the petitions are appropriate.
We find that the following separate units at the San Francisco,
California, plants of Traders Distributing Co., The Arabol
Manufacturing Co., Reid Murdock Co., Sloss & Brittain, and
California Barrel Co., Ltd., respectively, constitute appro-
priate units for purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act:
All warehouse employees, excluding office clerical em-
ployees, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
We further find that all warehouse and production employees
of American Chain & Cable Co., Inc., at its San Francisco,
California, plant, excluding office clerical employees, truck-
drivers, salesmen , professional employees , guards, working
foreman "A,"6 and other supervisors as defined in the Act,
constitute a unit appropriate for purposes of collective bargain-
ing within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.7
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.]
sBearing & Rim Supply Co., 107 NLRB No. 34. Member Murdock, who dissented in the
Bearing & Rim case, agrees with the decision herein because he is convinced that the cir-
cumstances surrounding the Employers resignations from the Association, unlike those in
the Bearing & Rim case, evidence an unequivocal intention on the part of the Employers to
abandon multiemployer bargaining and henceforth to bargain individually.
6As the record in Blue Ribbon Products Co., Inc., supra, which was made part of this
proceeding, shows that the working foreman "A" possesses and exercises authority to hire
and discharge employees, we find that he is a supervisor within the meaning of the Act, and
accordingly exclude him from the unit.
7 Apart from the question of excluding working foreman "A", there was no disagreement as
to the unit sought by the Petitioner in the American Chain & Cable case, which varies some-
what from the units sought in the five other petitions.
KENT PLASTICS CORPORATION and UNITED AUTOMOBILE,
AIRCRAFT AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS
OF AMERICA (UAW-CIO), Petitioner. Case No. 35-RC-786.
November 24, 1953
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER
Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election t an election
was conducted on December 10, 1952, under the direction and
supervision of the Regional Director for the Ninth Region
among the Employer's production and maintenance employees
1101 NLRB 519.
107 NLRB No. 51.
337593 0 - 55 - 12