Basco-Sacramento

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 11, 1961

131 N.L.R.B. 96 (N.L.R.B. 1961)

96 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
3. All of Respondent's hourly rated employees at its Westbury, New York, plant
in the wiring department, machine shop, preprocessing, processing, quality control,
porters, and shipping clerks, but excluding office clerical employees, professional
employees, salesmen, guards, and all supervisors as defined in Section 2(11) of the
'Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within
the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.
4. The Union was on August 6, 1959, and at all times thereafter has been, the
exclusive representative of all employees in the above-described appropriate unit for
the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act.
5. At all times after August 6, 1959, by refusing to bargaing collectively with the
Union as the exclusive representative of its employees in the above-described appro-
priate unit, Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act.
6. By interfering in the formation of the August 14 employees' committee and the
standing committee, and by contributing assistance and support to the August 14
employees ' committee and the standing committee Respondent has engaged in and
is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(2) of
the Act.
7. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, Respondent has engaged in and is engaging
in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)'(1) of the Act.
8. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and ( 7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
Atlas Shower Door Co., Distribudor Inc. d /b/a Basco-Sacramento,
Sacramento Shower Door Co., Golden State Shower Door Co.,
Fresno Shower Door Co ., and Associated Shower Door i and
Warehousemen 's Union, Local 17, I.L.W.U., Independent, Peti-
tioner. Case No. 2O-RC-4364. April 11, 1961
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Joseph L. Meagher, 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, Leedom, and Fanning].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Boards finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act .2
1 The name of the Employer has been amended in accord with the evidence. While the
above companies are variously designated in the record, their names appear above in
accord with the documentary evidence.
2 On the basis of our unit finding herein, we find that the companies named above, who
have been signatory parties to separate but identical multiemployer contracts, constitute
a single employer for jurisdictional purposes . While all these companies are engaged in
processing and/or manufacturing operations, some are also engaged in wholesaling or
retailing. The combined inflow of the members, as a group, exceeds $50,000 a year, and
their combined gross volume of business , as a group , exceeds $500,000 a year. Under
these circumstances , we find that the Employer is engaged in commerce and that it will
effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. See Krist Gradia, et at.,
121 NLRB 601, 602.
131 NLRB No. 2.
ATLAS SHOWER DOOR CO., ETC. 97
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.3
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section
9(c) (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of theAct4
4. In its petition, as amended at the hearing, the Petitioner re-
quested a multiemployer unit of inside shop production employees,
covering three of the above-named companies, or, in the alternative,
similarly composed separate units of each of these three companies.
While there was no dispute as to the composition of the unit, the
Employer and the Intervenor contended that, on the basis of the bar-
gaining history, the only appropriate unit was a multiemployer unit
covering all six of the companies named above. Subsequent to the
close of the hearing, the Petitioner filed a statement of amended posi-
tion requesting, alternatively, the six-company multiemployer unit
urged by the Employer and the Intervenor.
All six companies named above are engaged in the manufacture of
shower doors and allied products in the northern California area.
While there has been a multiemployer history of bargaining for the
categories of employees sought herein for several years, the three com-
panies originally requested by the Petitioner were never combined in a
three-company unit. Five of the above companies, however, have bar-
gained jointly with the Intervenor and executed contracts with it since
at least 1957. The sixth company, which began operations in the area
in 1958, signed the most recent contract subsequent to the conclusion
of negotiations therefor.5
3 Sheet Metal Production Workers , Local 355, AFL-CIO, hereinafter referred to as the
Intervenor , and Glaziers and Glassworkers Local Union No. 767 intervened on the basis
of contract showings . The latter union , subsequent to the close of the hearing, withdrew
its intervention.
I The Intervenor contends that the petition was untimely filed during the insulated
period of its most recent contract, executed by each of the six companies named above.
This contract conditioned employment on union membership "on or before the thirtieth
(30th) day following the beginning of . . . employment or the effective date of this
agreement , whichever is the later." The Board , however , indicated in Keystone Coat,
Apron & Towel Supply Company, etc., 121 NLRB 880, 885, that it would expect parties
to union-security agreements to adhere to the statutory provision and that a requirement
of union membership "on the thirtieth day [or such longer period as the parties may
specify]" constituted the "maximum permissible" union security within the meaning of the
Act. We find, as contended by the Petitioner, that the Intervenor's contract herein did
not adhere to the statutory provision , but exceeded the bounds of permissible union
security and, consequently, was not a bar . Accordingly, the fact that the petition was
filed during what would otherwise have been the "insulated period" does not require its
dismissal here. National Brassiere Products Corp., 122 NLRB 965.
The Intervenor also questioned the sufficiency of the Petitioner's interest showing if
a six-member multiemployer unit were found appropriate . The sufficiency of a Petitioner's
showing of interest , however, is an administrative matter not subject to litigation.
0. D. Jennings & Company, 68 NLRB 516. Moreover , we are administratively satisfied
that the Petitioner' s showing of interest for the unit herein found appropriate is adequate.
5 These 6 companies were members of an informal association , which was formally
incorporated in 1960, and currently has 15 members. There has been no bargaining, how-
ever, by this 15-member group for the employees sought herein
599198-62-vol. 131-8
98 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On the basis of the foregoing, we find that the six-company multi-
employer unit urged by the Employer, the Intervenor, and the Peti-
tioner in its statement of amended position is appropriate and,
therefore, that the Petitioner's original alternative requests for a
three-company unit or three separate units are inappropriate.
Accordingly, we find that the following employees constitute a unit
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the mean-
ing of Section 9 (b) of the Act :
All inside shop production employees,s including delivery truck-
drivers,' at the California plants of Atlas Shower Door Co. in Sacra-
mento, Distribudor Inc. d/b/a Basco-Sacramento in Sacramento, Sac-
ramento Shower Door Co. in Sacramento, Golden State Shower Door
Co. in Oakland, Fresno Shower Door Co. in Fresno, and Associated
Shower Door in San Carlos, excluding outside installers, office clerical
employees, salesmen, shop managers, and supervisors as defined in
the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
MEMBER FANNING, dissenting :
I disagree with the majority finding that the union-security provi-
sion exceeded the bounds of permissible union security. In accord-
ance with my position in Chun King Sales, Inc., 126 NLRB 851, foot-
note 6, I would find the union-security clause herein lawful and the
contract a bar. Accordingly, I would dismiss the petition.
6 We are administratively advised that none of the six companies herein involved has
inside maintenance employees . In such circumstances we approve the instant unit of
"inside shop production employees."
7 The record is silent as to truckdrivers except with regard to one company which
utilizes common carriers and occasionally has production employees drive trucks.
Shumate, Incorporated and Amalgamated Lithographers of
America , Local 23, Petitioner . Case No. 25-PC-1941. April 12,
1961
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act a hearing was held before Henry J. Winters, 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, Leedom, 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.
131 NLRB No. 15.