Woolwich, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 29, 1970

185 N.L.R.B. 783 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

WOOLWICH, INC. 783
Woolwich , Inc. and Teamsters Local 107 , affiliated
with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America . Case 4-RM-700
September 29, 1970
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS FANNING
AND BROWN
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of
the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a
hearing was held before Craig D. Leffler, Hearing
Officer. On February 12, 1970, the Regional Director
issued his Decision and Order in which he found
that the Employer's petition did not raise a question
concerning representation and ordered that the peti-
tion be dismissed. Thereafter, the Employer filed a
timely request for review.
On March 12, 1970, having treated the Employer's
request for review as a motion for reconsideration,
the Regional Director issued and caused to be duly
served on the parties an order vacating decision and
order and remanding case for further hearing, together
with a notice of reopened hearing. On March 25,
1970, a further hearing was held before the Hearing
Officer at which all interested parties were allowed
to participate. Thereafter, on April 7, 1970, and pur-
suant to the National Labor Relations Board Rules
and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, the Regional
Director transferred this case to the Board for
decision.
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.
The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's rul-
ings made at the hearing and finds that they are
free from prejudicial error. The rulings are hereby
affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, including the
brief filed by the Employer, the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the Act and it will effectuate the
policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
2. Teamsters Local 107, affiliated with the Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen and Helpers of America, herein called the
Union, is a labor organization within the meaning
of the Act.
3. Milton K. Morris, Inc., herein called Morris,
Inc., is a corporation whose stock is owned in its
entirety by Emma Morris, who functions as its princi-
pal executive officer. Morris, Inc., is a contract carrier
whose primary functions consist of the operation of
a trucking line and a break-bulk facility. The principal
customers of Morris, Inc., are multioutlet food chains
located in the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, area. For
these customers Morris, Inc., picks up large shipments
of sugar, soap, and related products from the manufac-
turers, transports these commodities to its break-
bulk facility, breaks the shipments down into smaller
quantities, and makes the deliveries to the customers'
individual outlets. Morris, Inc., employs truckdrivers
and warehousemen who are represented for purposes
of collective bargaining under a contract between
the Union and Motor Transport Labor Relations,
Inc., a multiemployer association of which Morris,
Inc., is a member.
The break-bulk facility utilized by Morris, Inc.,
consists of a dock and a small warehouse with insuffi-
cient capacity for any large amount of long term
storage. Customers of Morris, Inc., approached
Charles Morris, the secretary of the corporation and
the son of Emma Morris, and requested that Morris,
Inc., enlarge its warehouse facilities to provide for
long term storage of certain commodities, such as
picture frames. Because of the inability or unwilling-
ness of Emma Morris to expand the facilities of
Morris, Inc., Charles Morris, under the name of
Woolwich, Inc., built a warehouse facility which is
wholly owned and operated by Charles Morris and
his wife. The Woolwich warehouse began operations
in July 1969 and at all times since that date its
operations have been limited to the warehousing func-
tion. Woolwich neither owns nor operates trucks,
and merchandise is brought to and delivered from
the warehouse by trucks of Morris, Inc., and occasion-
ally by other carriers.
Merchandise intended for warehousing by Wool-
wich is delivered to its dock by the trucks of Morris,
Inc., or other carriers. These trucks are unloaded
by employees of Woolwich, who store the merchandise
in the warehouse pending an order from the customer.
When a customer places an order for the delivery
of merchandise, the order is generally made up by
Woolwich employees and taken to its dock, where
the employees load the merchandise on trucks for
delivery. In some instances, however, Woolwich
employees make up the order, and deliver it to one
of the access doors to the premises of Morris, Inc.,
from where it is taken over and loaded on the trucks
for delivery by Morris employees.
Notwithstanding the physical proximity of Wool-
wich and Morris, Inc., both concerns are operated
as separate entities. Except for Charles Morris, who
functions as an officer of both corporations, the man-
agement of the day-to-day operations of the two
185 NLRB No. 127
784 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
concerns is entirely separate. The immediate
supervision of the employees of Woolwich is the
concern of its superintendent, Herbert L. Wagoner,
who was formerly a dispatcher and safety director for
Morris, Inc., but who has supervised the employees
of Woolwich on a full-time basis since approximately
September 1969. Wagoner has no authority over the
employees of Morris, Inc., and, similarly, those who
supervise the day-to-day functions of the employees
of that concern have no authority with respect to the
employees of Woolwich.
All of the employees who have been employed
by Woolwich since it commenced operations have
been newly hired and have no history of employment
with Morris, Inc. Except for one warehouse employee
who occasionally drives a truck for Morris, Inc. after
the conclusion of his regular hours of work at Wool-
wich, there is no interchange of employees between
the two concerns, and there is no history of transfer.
The employees of each concern utilize separate time-
clocks. The wages and terms and conditions of employ-
ment of the employees of Morris, Inc., are established
by the terms of the multiemployer contract with
the Union, and they differ substantially from the
wages and benefits accorded by Woolwich to its
employees. Interchange of equipment between the
two concerns is limited to infrequent use of each
other's forklift. Although Woolwich did use office
space and the same address and telephone number
as Morris, Inc., during the initial stages of its opera-
tions , a separate office was being constructed on
the Woolwich premises at the time of the hearing
herein.
There is no history of collective bargaining for
the employees of Woolwich. On several occasions
after July 1969 representatives of the Union requested
that Charles Morris recognize the Union as the bar-
gaining representative of the Woolwich employees,
contending that these employees are covered by the
terms of the multiemployer contract to which Morris,
Inc., is signatory. When these overtures were refused,
the Union filed a grievance against Morns, Inc.,
which culminated in an arbitration proceeding before
a bipartite panel established under the terms of the
multiemployer bargaining agreement . Subsequently
the arbitration panel determined that the work being
performed by the employees of Woolwich fell within
the scope of the existing agreement . In the interim,
on December 2, 1969, Woolwich filed the instant
representation petition.
The Union contends that it has never made any
demand to represent the employees of Woolwich as
a separate unit, and argues , accordingly, that no
question of representation exists . The Union also con-
tends, contrary to Woolwich and Morris, Inc., that
the employees of Woolwich constitute an accretion
to the multiemployer bargaining unit which incorpo-
rates the employees of Morris, Inc. The Union argues
that the Board should accede to the determination
of the arbitration panel to this same end.
We find it clear from the record that the Union
does not, and never has, sought to represent the
employees of Woolwich in a separate bargaining unit.
In view of this, we find that no question of representa-
tion exists within the meaning of Section 9(c)(1) and
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.' However, we also
deem it appropriate to consider the contentions of
the parties with respect to the accretion issue and
the effect of the award of the arbitration panel
The evidence outlined above reveals that Woolwich
and Morris, Inc., are separately owned and essentially
separately managed. The day-to-day operations of
the two concerns are supervised by different groups
of managers and supervisors whose functions and
authority do no overlap. Although the two entities
occupy contiguous premises, their employee comple-
ments are distinct, there is no interchange or transfer,
and there is a minimal amount of opportunity for
contact between the,two groups of employees. Not-
withstanding the evidence that Woolwich and Morris,
Inc., serve essentially the same customers , there is,
nevertheless, a separateness and distinction in their
functions and operation : Morris , Inc., being engaged
in a trucking and break-bulk operation, while the
function of Woolwich is devoted exclusively to the
operation of a warehouse.
As to the award of the arbitration panel, the question
of whether the existing multiemployer contract was
intended or can be construed to cover those employees
of Woolwich who were hired after its effective date,
is a question for the arbitration panel, but its conclu-
sion is not binding on the Board . For assuming that
the arbitration panel answered the question as it
did, in the affirmative, it is nevertheless the obligation
of the Board to determine whether, absent the consent
of the employees, they constitute an accretion to
the existing multiemployer unit.' On the facts before
us, such a finding is not warranted here. Accordingly,
and as we have determined that no question concern-
ing representation exists, we shall dismiss the petition.
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the petition herein be, and
it hereby is, dismissed.
' Bowman Building Products Division , 170 NLRB No 30
2 Patterson-Sargent Division of Textron Inc, 173 NLRB No 203 and
Beacon Photo Service, Inc, 163 NLRB 706