Rheingold Breweries, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 27, 1966

162 N.L.R.B. 384 (N.L.R.B. 1966)

384 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE WILL NOT inform our employees that if they vote to nullify the obliga-
tion to pay union dues and initiation fees in a union -shop deauthorization elec-
tion, their dues and fees will be returned to them.
WE WILL NOT post any notice to our employees which repudiates or violates
any settlement agreement approved by the National Labor Relations Board or
which violates or attempts to alter or negate the meaning of the present notice.
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain with the Union by unilaterally changing
existing terms and conditions of employment in derogation of the Union 's status
as statutory representative of our employees by refusing to discharge upon the
Union's demands employees who fail to become members of the Union pur-
suant to valid union-security provisions of our collective -bargaining contract
with the Union.
WE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with, restrain , or coerce our employ-
ees in the exercise of their right to self-organization to form, join, or assist
State and County Chauffeurs , Warehousemen , and Allied Workers , Local Union
No. 382, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen , and Helpers of America , or any other labor organization, to
bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing or to engage
in concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual
aid or protection or to refrain from any or all such activities , except to the
extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership
in a labor organization as a condition of employment as authorized by Section
8(a)(3) of the Act.
WE WILL recognize the Union as the exclusive bargaining representative of
our employees in the appropriate unit as found in the Decision and will honor
upon the Union's demand all union security provisions of our collective-
bargaining agreement with the Union.
All our employees are free to become or remain members of the above-named
Union or any other labor organization or to refrain therefrom , except to the extent
that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor
organization as a condition of employment as authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of
the Act.
MONTGOMERY WARD & CO., INCORPORATED,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its pro-
visions, they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, Fourth
Floor, The 120 Building, 120 Delaware Avenue, Buffalo, New York 14202, Tele-
phone 842-3112.
Rheingold Breweries , Inc. and Salesmen 's Division , Local 153,
Office and Professional Employees International Union, AFL-
CIO, Petitioner. Case 2-I?C-14S33. December 27, 1966
DECISION ON REVIEW AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
On June 28, 1966, the Regional Director for Region 2 issued a
Decision and Order in which he dismissed the petition on the ground
that no question concerning representation existed in the requested
unit of route salesman, including merchandisemen, employed at the
Employer's Bridgeport, Connecticut, plant. Thereafter, in accordance
with Section 102.67 of the National Labor Relations Board Rules and
162 NLRB No. 32.
RHEINGOLD BREWERIES, INC. 385
Regulations, Series 8, as amended, the Petitioner filed a timely request
for review and for oral argument.
On September 8, 1966, the National Labor Relations Board by tele-
graphic order granted the request for review. Thereafter, the Em-
ployer filed a statement in support of the Regional Director's
Decision.
The Board has considered the entire record in this case with respect
to the issues under review, including the positions of the parties,' and
snakes the following findings :
On April 19, 1966, the Petitioner filed its petition for a unit of out-
side salesmen employed by the Employer at its Bridgeport, Con-
necticut, plant. At the hearing, Retail, Wholesale and Department
Store Union, Local No. 282, intervened on the basis of a recognition
agreement for the same employees between it and the Employer exe-
cuted on January 7, 1966. Earlier that day the Intervenor had filed
a petition for investigation and certification with the Connecticut
State Board of Labor Relations. By agreement, a payroll comparison
was made and a report issued showing that of 25 eligible employees,
16 had signed applications for membership and/or authorization
cards in favor of the Intervenor. On the basis of this report, and pur-
suant to Connecticut State Board practice and procedures, the
Employer and the Intervenor executed the recognition agreement.
Thereafter, they entered into negotiations. A number of meetings were
held, but no agreement had been reached between them at the time of
the filing of the petition herein, 4 months later.
The Employer contended that the report issued by the Connecticut
State Board and the recognition agreement constituted a bar to the
petition. The Regional Director found merit in this contention, as he
concluded, citing Keller Plastics Eastern, Inc., 157 NLRB 583, that
a bargaining relationship was thus established and that a reasonable
period of time for negotiation of an agreement had not elapsed. The
Petitioner, in its request for review, contends, inter alia, that the
"card-check certification" issued by the Connecticut State Board was
invalid.
For the reason below, we find that a question affecting commerce
exists concerning the representation of certain employees of the
Employer within the meaning of Sections 9(c) (1) and 2(6) and (7)
of the Act :
At the time the Intervenor filed its petition with the Connecticut
State Board and the Employer agreed with the Intervenor to the
cross-check, the Employer knew that the Petitioner herein might have
As the record and briefs adequately present the issues and the positions of the parties,
the Petitioner 's request for oral argument is denied.
264-047-67-vol. 162-26
386 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
an interest in the proceeding, but did not disclose such fact to the
State Board.2 This is evidenced by the fact that the Employer had
recently acquired the assets of a Ruppert brewery located near Hart-
ford, Connecticut, and had reemployed for work at its Bridgeport
Branch five or six of Ruppert's salesmen who it knew had been repre-
sented by the Petitioner herein. Thus, had the Employer revealed to
the Connecticut State Board agent the Petitioner's possible interest
in the -unit, the latter would have been notified and given the oppor-
tunity to intervene in the proceeding and make known the extent of
its interest.
As the above circumstances reveal that the Petitioner did not have
an opportunity to participate in the State Board proceeding which
led to the Employer's recognition of the Intervenor, we find the
principle of Keller Plastics inapplicable herein. We will not apply
that principle to hold a recognition agreement a bar to a petition for
certification subsequently filed by another union where, as here, it ap-
pears that the recognition agreement was entered into at a time when
the petitioning union had a substantial claim of interest and that union
was not afforded prior opportunity to demonstrate the extent of its
interest by means of an election or through other appropriate
procedures.
Accordingly, we shall direct an election in the following unit which
we find, in agreement with the parties, to be appropriate for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining with the meaning of Section 9(b) of
the Act :
All outside salesmen and merchandising salesmen employed by the
Employer at its 479 State Street Extension, Bridgeport, Connecticut,
location, excluding office clericals, professional employees, beer plumb-
ers, porters, drivers, warehousemen, employees at other locations,
watchmen, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] 3
[MEMBER JENIiINS took no part in the above Decision on Review
and Direction of Election.]
2 we note that had the Employer filed a petition with the Connecticut State Board it
would have been required , under that board ' s regulations , section 31-101-5, to state in
its petition the names and addresses of any individuals or labor organizations who claim
to represent any of the employees in the alleged bargaining unit. . . .
3 An election eligibility list, containing the names and addresses of all the eligible voters,
must be filed by the Employer with the Regional Director for Region 2 within 7 days after
the date of this Decision on Review and Direction of Election. The Regional Director shall
make the list available to all parties to the election. No extension of time to file this list
shall be granted by the Regional Director except in extraordinary circumstances. Failure
to comply with this requirement shall be grounds for setting aside the election whenever
proper objections are filed. Excelsior Underwear Inc., 156 NLRB 1236.