Standard Brands, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 15, 1974

214 N.L.R.B. 72 (N.L.R.B. 1974)

72 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Standard Brands , Inc., Fleischmann Mfg. Division,
Employer-Petitioner and Brewery Workers, DALU,
Local 293, AFL-CIO, Union-Petitioner . Cases 20-
RM-1748 and 20-AC-23
October 15, 1974
DECISION AND ORDER
By MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND PENELLO
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of
the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was
held before Hearing Officer Robert C. Grace.' The
Hearing Officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. After
the hearing and pursuant to the National Labor Re-
lations Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as
amended, the Regional Director issued an order
transferring the case to the Board for decision.
Thereafter, the Union-Petitioner and the Conference
of Brewery and Soft Drink Workers of the United
States of America and Canada, affiliated with the
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America and Local
293, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf-
feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, here-
in the Intervenor Unions, filed briefs'
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board
finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce and it
will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert juris-
diction herein.
2. We find that the Union-Petitioner and the In-
tervenor Unions' are labor organizations within the
meaning of the Act who claim to represent certain
employees of the Employer.
3. No question affecting commerce exists concern-
ing the representation of the employees of the Em-
' The Union-Petitioner filed an AC petition which was consolidated for
hearing with the RM petition in Case 20-RM - 1748. However , as there is no
existing certification covering the employees at the Standard Brands Oak-
land facility , we shall dismiss the petition in Case 20 -AC-23.
2 Inasmuch as the record and briefs adequately present the issues and
positions of the parties , the Intervenor Unions' request for oral argument is
hereby denied.
3 In its brief, the Union - Petitioner argues that Local 293 , affiliated with
International Brotherhood of Teamsters . Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and
Helpers of America , is not a labor organization within the meaning of the
Act. However , we note that the record indicates that Thomas Rusch, direc-
tor of organization for the Conference and the person whom IBT General
President Fitzsimmons has designated as trustee for Local 293, IBT, is will-
ing and able to represent the employees of the Employer 's Oakland facility
for purposes of collective bargaining.
ployer within the meaning of Sections 9(c)(1) and
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
The Conference of Brewery and Soft Drink Work-
ers of the United States of America and Canada, affi-
liated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America,
hereinafter Conference, contends that the RM peti-
tion must be dismissed because it is barred by a cur-
rent collective-bargaining agreement expiring April
30, 1976, and further because the RM petition is not
coextensive with the current bargaining unit. Brew-
ery Workers, DALU, Local 293, AFL-CIO: herein-
after DALU Local 293, contends that an election is
not appropriate and that the Board should declare
DALU Local 293 to be the bargaining representative
of the production and maintenance employees at the
Oakland facility of Standard Brands, Inc. Standard
Brands, Inc., hereinafter the Employer, does not con-
tend that an election is necessarily appropriate but
that it has filed the RM petition because two compet-
ing labor organizations have claimed to represent the
employees at its Oakland facility.
The dispute in the instant case resulted from the
merger of the International Union of United Brew-
ery, Flour, Cereal, Soft Drink and Distillery Workers
of America, hereinafter UBW, with the International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse-
men and Helpers of America, hereinafter IBT.
On July 19, 1972, the UB,W and IBT executed a
declaration of intent to merge and a no-raiding
agreement. On September 4, 1973, the UBW called a
special convention in order to vote on merging and
affiliating with the IBT. Thereafter, on November 5,
1973, the UBW held a special convention at which
time, by means of a roll call vote of 26,129 to 4,756,
the membership of UBW approved the merger with
the IBT.
Article I of the merger/affiliation agreement ap-
proved by the special convention provided:
Simultaneously with the approval of the
Agreement . . . all Local Unions chartered by
the United Brewery Workers shall become affili-
ates of the International Brotherhood of Team-
sters and all members of such Local Unions
shall be deemed for all purposes to be members
of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters.
Prior to the special convention, members of Local
293 of the UBW voted to oppose the merger and
voted "conditionally" to disaffiliate from the UBW if
the merger was approved.
By letter dated November I, 1973, Local 293
UBW's recording secretary, Powers, notified the Em-
ployer of its intention to vote against the merger and
214 NLRB No. 3
STANDARD BRANDS, INC.
to become an independent union within the AFL-
CIO if the merger were approved. Powers also re-
quested that the Employer continue to abide by parts
I and II of the existing contract. By letter dated No-
vember 2, 1973, Oakland Plant Manager Burgess re-
plied to Powers that the Employer considered the
contract "to constitute a legal and binding agreement
on both Standard Brands and the Local Union."
On February 10, 1974, according to Powers, an-
other meeting was held, after.notices were posted, at
which employees of the Oakland facility voted to dis-
affiliate from the UBW and to become a directly affi-
liated local of the AFL-CIO. Thereafter, Powers no-
tified Burgess of the disaffiliation action, and Bur-
gess agreed. to recognize DALU Local 293 as the
only collective-bargaining representative of the
Employer's production employees at the Oakland
plant.
On March 11, 1974, IBT General President Frank
Fitzsimmons appointed Thomas Rusch as "trustee
over the affairs of Local Union No. 293, effective
March 11, 1974." On April 8, 1974, Rusch sent a
letter to Burgess requesting that all dues deductions
be transmitted to IBT. Also in April, Rusch spoke
with Plant Manager Burgess and requested that the
Employer cease recognizing DALU Local 293 and
post IBT notices as to the institution of the trustee-
ship. However, since February 1974, the Employer
has continued to transmit dues deductions to DALU
Local 293.
The Conference contends that there has been no
schism here within the meaning of Hershey Chocolate
Corporation, 121 NLRB 901 (1958). We agree. Her-
shey Chocolate clearly states that certain conditions
must be met before the Board will direct an election
in the face of an existing collective-bargaining agree-
ment. In the case herein, those conditions have not
been met and no election is warranted.
First, we find that no schism, within the meaning
of Hershey Chocolate, has taken place in this case.
Here, the UBW, at its special convention in Novem-
ber 1973, passed a resolution providing for the UBW
to disaffiliate from the AFL-CIO and to affiliate
with the IBT. No party herein contests the bona fides
of the vote of the special convention. Therefore, once
the convention approved the merger/affiliation of
the UBW with the IBT, there existed no conflict over
policy at the highest level and there resulted no dis-
ruption of intraunion relationships. There is no indi-
cation that the AFL-CIO, subsequent to the UBW
special convention, created any organization with ju-
risdiction similar to the UBW or assigned the juris-
diction of the UBW to a currently existing AFL-CIO
organization. Nor did any of the leadership of the
UBW form a splinter group in order to attempt to
73
keep the UBW within the AFL-CIO. Thus, the disaf-
filiation of DALU Local 293 did not take place in
the context of a basic intraunion conflict over policy
at the highest level. Rather, the situation herein is
more akin to where a dissident group of local union
members has rebelled against actions taken by their
international union. In such circumstances, the
Board has found that no basic intraunion conflict is
present and no schism exists. Swift & Company, 145
NLRB 756 (1963). In Swift, the Board refused to di-
rect an election where a local union had disaffiliated
because its international union would not agree to
the local's negotiating deviations from the na-
tionwide master agreement. Here, DALU Local 293
was created because certain members were dissatis-
fied over a proper and legitimate action taken by its
international union. Thus, as in Swift, there exists
here no basic intraunion conflict over policy at the
highest level of the international. Instead, we have
DALU Local 293 being dig°satisfied with the actions
of the international union, the UBW. Hershey Choco-
late specifically stated that "with respect to the situa-
tion at the local level . . . an election is warranted
only when the local action takes place in the context
of a basic intraunion conflict, and not otherwise [em-
phasis supplied]." Finding no basic intraunion con-
flict here, we find an election unwarranted.
Secondly, Hershey Chocolate, while not defining a
specific time period in which a disaffiliation action
would be timely, suggested that a I-month period
would be reasonable. Here, the Oakland employees
had long been aware of the possible merger of the
UBW with the IBT. The UBW and IBT executed a
declaration of intent to merge and/or affiliate on
July 19, 1972. In October 1973, employees at the
Oakland plant met to discuss the proposed merger
but took only a "conditional" vote regarding disaffil-
iation. Though the UBW's special convention voted
on November 5, 1973, to affiliate with the IBT, it was
not until February 10, 1974, that members of Local
293 met and voted on disaffiliation. Without reach-
ing the question of whether the low voter turnout at
the February 10 meeting was caused by improper
procedures, we conclude that, in light of the UBW's
possible merger having been long publicized, the de-
lay between the UBW's special convention and the
action of the Oakland employees at the February 10
meeting was unjustified and unreasonable. Accord-
ingly, we find that the disaffiliation action of Febru-
ary 10 was untimely and does not warrant the
Board's directing an election.
Thirdly, since the RM petition herein is not coex-
tensive with the nationwide bargaining unit of the
Employer, it is inappropriate to direct an election in
this case. In Standard Brands, Incorporated, 75 NLRB
74 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
394 (1947), the Board concluded that the employees
of the Employer's Oakland plant, having for many
years been included in the nationwide bargaining of
the Employer and the UBW, did not constitute a unit
appropriate for bargaining. In the case before us, as
in the earlier case, items of mandatory bargaining
such as wage rates, holidays, vacations, pension, wel-
fare, overtime pay, premium pay, and shift schedul-
ing are negotiated at the national level. In light of the
long history of bargaining at a national level and af-
ter examining the scope, coverage, and application of
the nationwide agreement, we conclude that the
Employer's Oakland plant is part of a single multi-
plant unit. In regard to the local supplements negoti-
ated at the local level, the Board has held that local
bargaining as to local issues is not inconsistent with
bargaining on a nationwide basis. See General Elec-
tric Company, 180 NLRB 1094 (1970).
Furthermore, within the nationwide bargaining
unit here, only the local union at the Employer's
Oakland plant has requested recognition as a disaffi-
liated local. Hershey Chocolate envisioned directing
elections in certain cases in order to eliminate confu-
sion destabilizing the bargaining relationship. Under
the circumstances here, should the Board direct an
election and, in effect, afford the Oakland employees
the opportunity to withdraw from the nationwide
bargaining unit during the term of the collective-bar-
gaining agreement, the Board would be adding desta-
bilizing confusion rather than bringing stability to
the situation.
Therefore, we conclude, in accordance with prece-
dent as stated in Hershey Chocolate, that the RM pe-
tition herein must be dismissed. The conditions re-
quired by Hershey Chocolate to warrant a direction of
election have clearly not been met in this case. There
exists no basic intraunion conflict over policy at the
highest level, the employee disaffiliation action was
taken in an untimely manner, and the disaffiliation
action is not coextensive with the existing unit. Find-
ing that the current collective-bargaining agreement
is a bar to these proceedings, we shall dismiss the
RM petition.
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the petitions in Cases 20-
AC-23 and 20-RM-1748 be, and they hereby are,
dismissed.