Saunders System Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 14, 1964

148 N.L.R.B. 1047 (N.L.R.B. 1964)

SAUNDERS SYSTEM CORP . 1047
other party. In this proceeding, however; the program concession of Superior was
canceled by United in accordance with the decision of the arbitrator. It would ap-
pear doubtful, therefore, that inasmuch as this was not a voluntary act of United
Theatres in that its abiding by the arbitration award which resulted in Superior's
losing its program concession was not the type of situation envisaged within the pro-
scriptive purview of Section 8(e), because the cessation of business between United
and Superior was not the result of an "agreement" but simply the result of the parties
abiding by the arbitration award. See Bakery Wagon Drivers, Local No. 484, 137
NLRB 987, 995.
Then, too, Respondent Union's insistence on adherence to the provisions of article
IV, section 3, was not illegal as this contract clause was a total and complete prohibi-
tion on all subcontracting. A contract which prohibits all subcontracting, the Board
has stated, is not a violation of Section 8(e) but a legitimate device to protect the
economic integrity of the bargaining unit.42
Moreover, the Respondent Union was not objecting to subcontracting as such but
only where a subcontractor who was awarded a program concession by a signatory
to the multiemployer bargaining agreement was not obtaining his program sales-
men through the Union, as expressly provided for in the collective-bargaining agree-
ment between the theatre and the Union. The basis for the Union's objection to
program subcontractors not obtaining salesmen through the Union was not only the
latent possibility that the working standards embodied in the Union's contract with
the theatre owners might be undermined, but also to protect the work which tradi-
tionally has belonged to program salesmen in the bargaining unit. A contract whose
overriding purpose in limiting subcontracting to employers is to maintain working
conditions equivalent to those in the contractual bargaining unit, as well as to protect
the work of the unit employees, is primary in character and not proscribed by Sec-
tion 8(e) absent a requirement for a union contract to enforce illegitimate demands
against subcontractors.43 The Respondent Union's objective, therefore, was to pro-
tect the legitimate economic interests of its member program salesmen and not just
enforcing article IV, section 3, to force United Theatres to cease doing business with
Superior. The language employed in this provision, as reasonably construed, im-
poses no unlawful restraints, as the facts herein reveal that article IV, section 3 is
"strictly germane to the economic integrity of the principal work unit." 44
It is found, therefore, based upon the entire record, that there is not substantial
evidence to support the General Counsel's contention that Respondent Union's motive
in entering into article IV, section 3 was for a reason proscribed by Section 8(e) of
the Act. Accordingly, it is recommended that the complaint herein be dismissed in
its entirety.45
42 Cardinal Industries, Inc., 1'36 NLRB 977 ; Pure Milk Association, 141 NLRB 1237.
48 Cf Drive-Thru Dairy, Inc., 145 NLRB 445.
44 District No. 9, International Association of Machinists v. N.L.R'B. (Greater St. Louis
Automotive Trimmers & Upholsterers . Assn. ), 315 F. 2d 33 (C.A.D.C ), 51 LRRM 2496,
2498 . See also Retail Clerks Union Local 770 v. N.L.R B. ( United States Hardware etc.),
296 F. 2d 368 , 373 ('C.AD.C.) '
45 The conventional "conclusions of law" which are customarily repeated at this point
are omitted as they will be found in the body of this Decision.
Saunders System Corp.' and Lodge 804, District Lodge No. 34,
International Association of Machinists , AFL-CIO, Petitioner.
Case No. 9-RC-2651. September 14, 1964
DECISION AND ORDER AMENDING BARGAINING UNIT
On December 29, 1955, the Regional Director for Region 9
issued a certification of representatives herein, certifying the Peti-
1 The Employer' s name appears as amended at the hearing.
148 NLRB No. 106.
1048 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tioner as the exclusive bargaining representative of the Employer's
employees in the following unit :
All garage employees of the Employer at its Third and Walnut
Streets and 2955 Spring Grove Avenue, Cincinnati, Ohio, loca-
tions, including mechanics, their helpers and garage servicemen,
excluding office clerical employees, and all guards, professional
employees and supervisors as defined in the Act, and all other
employees. _
The current collective-bargaining agreement, and supplement
thereto, effective from September 1, 1963, until September 1, 1964,
covers all such employees at the Employer's present locations in
Cincinnati. '
On May 20, 1964, the Petitioner filed a motion to amend bargaining
unit, requesting that the Board amend or clarify the unit by includ-
ing therein the Employer's new facility located in Hamilton, Ohio.
The Employer filed a statement of opposition to motion, and on
June 19, 1964, the Board remanded the-matter to the Regional Direc-,
tor for the purpose of conducting a hearing to resolve the issues raised
by the Petitioner's motion and the Employer's opposition thereto. A
hearing was held on July 9, 1964, before Hearing Officer William T.
George, Jr. 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 [Chairman McCulloch- and Members Leedom and
Brown].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : •
The Employer is engaged in-the business of renting and servicing
automotive equipment. In December 1955 the Employer operated
two garages, both of which were located in Cincinnati, one at Third
and Walnut Streets and the other at 2955 Spring GroveAvenue, and
the certification included the employees at both these locations. How-
ever, about that time the Employer • closed the Third and Walnut
Street garage and transferred the one employee located there to the
Spring Grove Avenue location.
Among the Employer's operations is the supplying of tractors and
trailers to the Fuller Manufacturing Company at Falmouth, Ken-
tucky, about 40 miles-from Cincinnati. As the Employer maintains
no facility at Falmouth, it services this equipment by sending me-
chanics from''the Spring Grove Avenue shop in Cincinnati to Fal-
mouth; by bringing the equipment to'Spring Grove Avenue; or by
having the work done.by an independent garage at Falmouth.
At an undisclosed date, the Employer also entered into an agree-
ment with Champion Paper Company whereby the Employer rented
SAUNDERS SYSTEM CORP. 1049
trucks to Champion. and ' serviced. them at the Spring Grove Avenue
garage, where the Employer also serviced other trucks which Cham-
pion rented from another company. About May 1, 1963, Champion
rented additional trucks, and the Employer opened a facility at
Hamilton, Ohio, about 25 to 30 miles from its Cincinnati garage, to
handle 'Champion's increased maintenance requirements. It is this
facility which is in dispute herein.
At Hamilton the Employer has had, in all, only two employees,
neither of whom was transferred from Cincinnati; it has never had
more than one employee there at a time. The single employee now
at Hamilton does the same kind of work as that done at the Spring
Grove Avenue garage and wears the same kind of uniform as that
worn by its employees. Two or three times a week he drives to the
Spring Grove Avenue garage in a company-owned service truck, con-
fers with its shop foreman, picks up parts for trucks, and returns to
Hamilton. Whenever the shop foreman'thinks it necessary, he goes
to Hamilton to "check on" the operation there.. The Hamilton em-
ployee generally determines his own hours of employment, because
the work there is irregular and usually requires his presence on week-
ends only. Prior to July 1 the Hamilton employee, like his predeces-
sor, was carried on a separate payroll, but his wages were paid from
the Cincinnati operation's petty cash. This was'changed as of July 1,
but the record does not disclose in what manner.
- At the time of the hearing, July 9, 1964, the Employer planned to
open a third facility in July or August at Woodlawn, Ohio, midway
between Cincinnati and Hamilton, or about 15 miles from both cities,
to service trucks operated by the Goodwill Company. The Employer
has made an agreement with the Petitioner that all the terms of the
current collective-bargaining contract covering the Cincinnati em-
ployees, will be applicable to employees at the new shop.' The Fal-
mouth operation will be staffed, at least in part, by employees
transferred from Cincinnati.
It appears from the above that the Spring Grove Avenue shop is
the Employer's base of operations for the area in and around Cin-
cinnati and that its other. ocations are' merely branches or adjuncts
thereof which the Employer' establishes and disestablishes as conven-
ience dictates. Further, as the parties have agreed to the extension
of the current contract to cover the new facility atWoodlawn, which
is located about halfway between Cincinnati and Hamilton, the con-
tract now includes all employees in the area except the single em-
ployee at Hamilton. Yet he performs work previously performed
at Spring Grove Avenue and now does the same kind of work as
employees at that shop, which he' frequently visits for business pur
poses, and he is subject to the supervision of its shop foreman. More-
over, the Hamilton facility appears to be an ope'rative' arm of the
1050 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Spring Grove Avenue shop. In view of the foregoing, we find the
Hamilton facility to be an accretion to the Spring Grove Avenue
facility. We shall, therefore, grant the Petitioner's motion and
amend the certification by including the Hamilton facility therein.
[The Board amended the certification previously issued herein, by
specifically including therein the facility of Saunders System Corp.,
located at Hamilton, Ohio.]
Design Service Company , Inc. and Architectural & Engineering
Guild , Local 66, American Federation of Technical Engineers,
AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 2-RC-13246. September 14,
1964
DECISION ON REVIEW AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
On April 21, 1964, the Regional Director for Region 2 issued a
Decision and Order in this case, finding that the only appropriate
unit was an overall unit of engineers and draftsmen employed at the
Employer's New York City, New York, plant, and at various field
locations on customers' premises in various parts of the country and
dismissing the petition because the Petitioner had not submitted a
sufficient showing of interest in such unit. Thereafter, the Petitioner,
in accordance with the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as
amended, filed with the Board a timely request for review of such
Decision on the ground that the Regional Director erred in not find-
ing that the requested unit limited to the New York City plant is
appropriate, and that his findings of fact were erroneous. On
May 25, 1964, the Board, by telegraphic order, granted the request
for review.
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 considered the entire record in the case with respect
to the Regional Director's determination under review and makes the
following findings :
The Petitioner requests a unit of all engineers and draftsmen and
all employees doing engineering and draftsmen's work at the Em-
ployer's New York City plant, excluding all other employees.' The
Employer contends that the only appropriate unit would also include
similarly classified employees who are administratively attached to
the New York City plant but who are working in the field at the
1 The Employer has other plants, not involved in this proceeding.
148 NLRB No. 105.