Texas Cartage Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 19, 1959

122 N.L.R.B. 999 (N.L.R.B. 1959)

TEXAS CARTAGE COMPANY 999
period of the original contract will. be considered timely in relation
to the extended contract . Thus, if a petition had been filed herein
from 150 to 60 days before February 19, 1957, it would have been
timely and there would have been no contract bar. However, no
petition was filed during that period and under our established pre-
mature-extension doctrine , as modified by our decision in Deluxe
Metal,' the extended contract , which was for a term of about 22
months, became a bar to any petition not filed from 150 to 60 days
before its terminal date of March 31 , 1958.5
In Deluxe Metal, the Board indicated that any contract which
would be effective as a bar would be given a 60-day insulated period
immediately preceding and including the expiration date of the con-
tract. As the petition in this case was filed during the insulated
period of the extended contract , we find that it was untimely filed
and must be dismissed.6
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
4 Deluxe Metal Fltrniture Company, 121 NLRB 995.
5 National Foundry Company of New York, Inc., 109 NLRB 357.
6 The Steck Company, 122 NLRB 12.
Texas Cartage Company and Andrew Franks , Petitioner and
Local 299, International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauf-
feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America . Case No.
7-UD-12. January 19, 1959
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a union-shop deauthorization petition duly filed under Sec-
tion 9(e) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held
before Herman Corenman, hearing officer. 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 [Members Rodgers, Jenkins, and Fanning].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain
employees of the Employer.
3. The Petitioner seeks to rescind the authority of Local Union
299, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen and Helpers of America, hereinafter called the Union, to
122 NLRB No. 120.
1000 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
make a union-security agreement in behalf of an alleged bargaining
unit of the Employer's truckdrivers. All the Employer's truckdrivers
are currently covered by a 3-year contract with the Union. The
contract, which contains a union-security clause, is in effect from
February 1, 1958, to January 31, 1961. The Union contends that the
petition should be dismissed because the unit as to which deauthori-
zation is sought by the Petitioner is not coextensive with the bargain-
ing unit. Although the Employer is not a member of an employer
association, the contract between the Employer and the Union is
identical with the one which was negotiated between various em-
ployer associations and the numerous affiliates of Teamsters in the
Central States Area. The Union contends that the appropriate unit
coincides with the existing coverage of the Central States Area agree-
ment, inasmuch as the grievance procedure in the contract provides
for participation by the Joint Area Cartage Committee and the Joint
State Cartage Committee. The record shows that the Employer
never took part in the contract negotiations on the areawide basis,
nor did it authorize any employer association or other agent to nego-
tiate in its behalf. The negotiated contract was merely left with
the Employer by the union business agent with a request that it be
signed, and the Employer signed on its independent judgment. The
existence of uniform or master contracts covering a given geographic
area does not ipso facto establish a multiemployer bargaining unit.
Although the Employer has adopted the Central States Area agree-
ment, we find that there is no history of bargaining on a multi-
employer basis such as to preclude a finding that its employees con-
stitute a separate, appropriate unit.'
4. All truckdrivers employed by Texas Cartage Company at its
establishment in Detroit, Michigan, excluding all other employees,
guards, and all supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit
appropriate for the purposes of an election under Section 9 (e) (1)
of the Act. -
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
1 Colonial Cedar Company , Inc., 119 NLRB 1613.
Korber Hats, Inc. and Esther Sousa, Mary M. Sullivan and
Georgiana J. Lambert, Petitioners and United Hat, Cap and
Millinery Workers of America, AFL -CIO. Case No. 1-RD-274.
January 19, 1959
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND CERTIFICATION
OF RESULTS OF ELECTION
Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election dated October 16,
1958,' an election by secret ballot was conducted on November 6, 1958,
Unpublished.
122 NLRB No. 128.