Thomas H. Marrow Trucking Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsOct 20, 1965

155 N.L.R.B. 271 (N.L.R.B. 1965)

THOMAS H. MARROW TRUCKING CO., ETC. 271 set platemaking, including camera operation, darkroom work, stripping, opaquirig, and plate burning, except insofar as any such conduct is permitted under Section 8(b) (4) (D) of the Act. ST. Louis PRINTING PRESSMEN AND ASSISTANTS UNION No. 6, INC., AFFILIATED WITH INTER- NATIONAL PRINTING PRESSMEN AND ASSIST- ANTS UNION OF NORTH AMERICA, AFL-CIO, Labor Organization. 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. Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 1520 Market Street, St. Louis, Missouri, Telephone No. 622- 4156, if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions. Thomas H. Marrow Trucking Co. and Chairman E. Stonebrook, Petitioner , and Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen & Helpers Union Local No. 542, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America.' Case No. 31-RD-763. October 20, 1965 DECISION AND ORDER Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a hearing was held before Hearing Officer Norman H. Greer. The Hearing Officer's rulings made at the hear- in gs are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. There- after the Union filed briefs in support of its position. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Members Fanning, Brown, and Zagoria]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act and it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. 2. The labor organization - involved claims to represent certain employees of the Employer. 1 As amended at the hearing. 155 NLRB No. 29. 272 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa- tion of certain employees of the Employer within the meaning of Sec- tion 9(c) (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act for the following reasons: The Petitioner seeks a decertification election in a unit limited to the Employer's office clerical employees. The Employer agrees that this unit is appropriate. The Intervenor contends that: (1) The unit requested by the Petitioner is inappropriate because the multiemployer unit of which the Employer was a member for more than 5 years is the only appropriate unit, and (2) the current multiemployer contract is a bar to this proceeding. As we agree with the Intervenor's first con- tention, we do not reach the second. Pursuant to authorization given in 1958, the Employer has been a party to successive multiemployer contracts covering these employees, of which the last expired June 30, 1964. The Employer contends that it is not bound by the current multiemployer contract, running from July 1, 1964, to March 31, 1967, because, it timely withdrew authority to bargain from the association and has not individually signed that contract. Before negotiations for the current contract began, the Employer withdrew the authority of California Trucking Association to repre- sent it for collective bargaining.- However, the Employer has never indicated a desire to bargain on an individual basis. Thus, the Employer did not respond to a letter from the Intervenor indicating a willingness to change the bargaining pattern. Rather, when the new multiemployer contract was executed the Employer accepted a copy and permitted the Intervenor to distribute copies to its employ- ees. The Employer has adhered to the terms and conditions of the current multiemployer contract, including wages, dues checkoff, and payments for health, welfare, and pension benefits. Indeed, the Employer testified that as soon as he learned what the wage scale of the current contract was, he promptly applied it to his employees .3 In these circumstances, and particularly in view of the continued checkoff of union dues, as provided in the current multiemployer agree- ment,4 we are unable to conclude that the Employer has unequivocally manifested an intention to withdraw from the established multiem- ployer unit and to pursue a course of dealing individually with the Intervenor on a single-employer basis. Accordingly, we find that the Employer's office employees are part of the established multiemployer a It is not suggested that this was not an appropriate time for withdrawal. 3It is also appears that the Employer, after the filing of this petition, reinstated his authorization to the California Trucking Association to bargain on its behalf as to em- ployees other than those involved herein d Cf. Bethlehem Steel Company (Shipbuilding Division), 136 NLRB 1500, 1502, affirmed in this respect 320 F. 2d 615 (CA 3), holding in substance that the continuity of a checkoff obligation rests on the continued existence of a valid agreement I CHAUFFEURS, TEAMSTERS & HELPERS, ETC. 273 unit, and that the unit here sought is inappropriate. We shall there- fore dismiss the petition. [The Board dismissed the petition.] Chauffeurs , Teamsters and Helpers "General" Local No. 200, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf- feurs, and Warehousemen and Helpers of America [State Sand and Gravel Company; Hillview Sand and Gravel , Inc.] and Fred H. Sinner and Arthur A. Dietrich . Case No. 30-CB-9 (formerly 13-CB-1654). October 21, 1965 DECISION AND ORDER On January 19, 1965, Trial Examiner W. Gerard Ryan issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Deci- sion. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Exam- iner's Decision and a supporting brief, and the General Counsel filed an answering brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Brown and Zagoria]. The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner 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 and the entire record in this case, including the foregoing exceptions and briefs, and hereby adopts the findings, con- clusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner with the follow- ing additions and modifications. 1. The complaint alleges, and the Trial Examiner found, that the Respondent violated Section 8 (b) (2) of the Act by causing Hillview Sand and Gravel, Inc., hereinafter called Hillview, to discharge employee Sinner and by causing State Sand and Gravel Company, hereinafter called State, to discharge and to reduce the seniority of employee Dietrich. The Respondent initially contends that the complaint in this pro- ceeding is barred by the 6-month proviso to Section 10(b) of the Act.' 1 This provides that . . . no complaint shall issue based upon any unfair labor practice occurring more than six months prior to the filing of the charge with the Board and the service of a copy thereof upon the person against whom such charge is made 155 NLRB No. 31.