Royal Crown Cola Bottling Co. of Sacramento

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 8, 1965

150 N.L.R.B. 1624 (N.L.R.B. 1965)

1624 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Wood] and Local 703 and I wrote a letter-and I said I didn 't think Local 703 should
be held responsible for the ignorance of Robert Wood ," at which point Wood, he
says, entered the conversation.
The letter of July 22, set forth above , says nothing whatever about Local 703's
being held responsible for Wood 's actions .? This contradiction retains its force even
if it were to be assumed that Goers was showing Burton only a copy of the letter.
Additionally, I do not credit Goers' testimony that the Board "had said" they were
thinking of "prosecuting " Wood and Local 703, following which , or as the result of
which , he wrote the letter. The witness is dating this purported statement prior not
only to the filing of the charge by McKinney-Goers on August 9, but even prior to
the July 22 letter. The witness is saying , in effect, that he wrote this letter in protest
because he had been told by somebody that not only was a proceeding against Wood
being considered but one against Local 703 also . I am unable to believe ' that any
representative of the Board or of the General Counsel told Goers or anyone else, even
before the charge herein was filed, much less investigated , and even before July 22,
when Goers first wrote the Board , that the Board was thinking of issuing a complaint
against these Respondents.
Finally, I credit Wood rather than Goers because of the latter 's demonstrated hos-
tility to Wood . Goers, after 12 years in office, was defeated by Wood in a union
election. He appealed to the International union for a new election , and was defeated
again . His demeanor on the stand revealed his hostility , as for example , his charac-
terization of Wood as arrogantly ignorant . Burton, who , judging from Goers' own
testimony , was not unfriendly to him, was not called as a witness . Construing Goers'
testimony most favorably to him, I find it confused , contradictory , and of little proba-
tive value I have found Wood to be a generally credible witness on other matters.
I credit his denial of the statement attributed to him by Goers as to which the Board
has directed me to resolve the question of credibility.
7 Although Goers' testimony does not permit any conclusion other than that he is
referring throughout to the original letter dated July 22, 1963 , Goers did write one other
letter to the Board ( General Counsel 's Exhibit No . 7) dated July 24. It , too, makes
no mention directly or indirectly of Local 703's being held responsible for the acts of
Robert Wood.
Royal Crown Cola Bottling Co. of Sacramento and Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers, Local Union No. 150,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen & Helpers of America , Petitioner. Case No. 20-RC-
5947. February 8, 1965
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 Hearing Officer
E. Terry Durant. The Hearing Officer's rulings made at the
hearing 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 [Chairmen McCulloch and Members Fanning
and Jenkins].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended.
150 NLRB No. 159.
ROYAL CROWN COLA BOTTLING CO. OF SACRAMENTO 1625
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain
employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of certain employees of the Employer within the meaning of
Section 9(c) (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
In April 1963, the Employer and Nehi Beverage Association,
herein called the Association, executed a collective-bargaining con-
tract covering the employees involved herein. This contract was
effective for 1 year beginning on April 1, 1963, and contained a
60-day automatic renewal clause.' On February 17, 1964, the
Association submitted its contract proposals to the Employer. The
Employer rejected these proposals on the ground that they had
not been submitted prior to the automatic renewal date of the con-
tract and therefore the contract renewed itself and was in full
force and effect until April 1, 1965. On April 2, the Petitioner
filed a petition in Case No. 20-RC-5855 seeking to represent the
employees involved herein. However, after investigation, a Board
agent solicited and obtained a withdrawal of this petition by the
Petitioner on the ground that the contract, which had automatically
renewed itself, was a bar to the petition. The Regional Director
approved the withdrawal of the petition on April 30. On May 14,
at an Association meeting, members of the Association took action pur-
porting to dissolve the Association. The instant petition was filed on
June 1.
The Employer contends that its current contract with the Asso-
ciation, which will expire on April 1, 1965, is a bar to the petition.
The Petitioner takes a contrary position on the asserted ground
that the Association is defunct.
The Board has held that a petition will not be dismissed, even
though prematurely filed, if a hearing is directed despite the pre-
maturity of the petition and the Board's decision issues on or
after the 90th day preceding the expiration date of the contract .2
This is the situation here. We therefore find it unnecessary to con-
sider the above contentions of the Employer and the Petitioner,
as the existing contract is under the circumstances not a bar to the
petition.
1 Article 17 of the contract provides as follows :
This agreement shall be effective as of the 1st day of April, 1963 and shall continue
in effect until the 1st day of April 1964 and from year to year thereafter, unless
terminated by either party giving written notice of termination to the other party
not less than sixty (60) days, nor more than 120 days, prior to the anniversary date
of the contract.
z Deluxe Metal Company, 121 NLRB 995; Continental Can Company, 145 NLRB 1427,
compare Weston Biscuit Company, Inc, 117 NLRB 1206.
1626 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
4. The parties stipulated, and we find, that the following employ-
ees of the Employer constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes
of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the
Act:
All production and maintenance employees at the Employer's
Sacramento, California, bottling plant, excluding office clerical
employees, guards, and supervisors, as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
Local 22, International Association of Heat and Frost Insulators
and Asbestos Workers, AFL-CIO [Mundet Cork Company]
and Houston Insulation Contractors Association . Case No.
23-CC-142. February 9, 1965
DECISION AND ORDER
On November 20, 1964, Trial Examiner Wellington A. Gillis
issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair
labor practices in violation of the Act, and recommending that it
cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action,
as set forth in 'the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. There-
after the Respondent and the Charging Party each filed exceptions
to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a supporting brief.
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 [Chairman McCulloch and Members Fanning and
Jenkins].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the
Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire
record in this case, and hereby adopts the Trial Examiner's findings,
conclusions, and recommendations except as noted below)
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act,
as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders
IIn view of our agreement with the Trial Examiner's ultimate finding that an object
of the Respondent 's refusal to install the Johns -Manville jacketing was to force Mundet
to cease doing business with Johns -Manville because its product did not carry the Union
label, we find it unnecessary to pass on the alternative ground in which the Trial
Examiner stated he would find a violation of the Act if it was assumed that the Union's
object was other than the one he actually found.
150 NLRB No. 156.