General Paint Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 25, 1951

95 N.L.R.B. 539 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

GENERAL PAINT CORPORATION 539
MEMBERS MIrRDOCK and STYLES took no part in the consideration of
the above Decision and Direction of Election.
GENERAL PAINT CORPORATION , PETITIONER and STEEL, PAPER HOUSE
AND CHEMICAL WORKERS UNION , LOCAL 578, A. F. OF L.
GENERAL PAINT CORPORATION, PETITIONER and PAINT MAKERS UNION,
LOCAL 1232, A. F. OF L. Cases Nos. 01-RM-183 and 21-ISM-184.
July 25,1951
Decision and Order
Upon petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before Jerome
A. Reiner, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the
hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the repre-
sentation of 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:
On March 2, 1951, the Steel, Paper House and Chemical Workers
Union, Local 578, A. F. of L., hereinafter called Local 578, and Paint
Makers Union, Local 1232, A. F. of L., hereinafter called Local 1232,
requested the Employer to give them a letter providing for recognition
of the Unions as representatives of the Employer's employees and
agreeing to negotiate a contract.' Local 578 sought to represent
employees engaged in truck driving, shipping, receiving, and ware-
housing; Local 1232 sought to represent production and maintenance
employees, excluding truck drivers, shipping, receiving, and ware-
housing employees.
Representatives of Local 578 and Local 1232, acting jointly, advised
the Employer on March 2 that they did not represent a majority
of the Employer's employees and that they did not propose to make
further attempts to solicit members from among the Employer's em-
ployees. Efforts to secure recognition through the medium of a letter
were continued at that time, however, and thereafter on about March
' Local 1232 had filed a petition (21-RC-1775) on January 26, 1931, alleging that it
represented a majority of the Employer' s employees in a production and maintenance unit.
After the Employer had agreed to a consent election , Local 1232 withdrew its petition
Pebruaiy 14, 1951
95 NLRB No. 68.
540 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
12 and 13, 1951. Again no claim to represent a majority of the
employees was made by either Union, but the Employer was advised
on March 13, 1951, that if it did not acquiesce to the demands of the
Unions for recognition that it would. be placed on a "we do not
patronize" list.
On March 15, 1951, the Employer filed the instant petitions. On
March 19, 1951, picketing began at the Employer's establishment.
The picket signs were addressed to the public and stated that : "The
products manufactured by this firm are non-union. This product
is on the `we do not patronize list' of Teamsters' Joint Council 42,
Los Angeles Building Trades Council, Los Angeles Central Labor
Council, Teamsters' Local 578, Paint Makers Local 1232." Leaflets
setting forth the names of manufacturing firms who had signed
contracts with Local 1232 and containing a partial list of the un-
organized paint manufacturing companies in Los Angeles, including
the name of the Employer, were distributed to employers and em-
ployees where the Employer's products were used. Representatives
of Local 578 advised various trucking concerns who handled the
Employer's products of the existence of the picket line.
On March 22, 1951, the Employer received a joint letter, dated
March 16, 1951, from the Unions disclaiming any interest as bar-
gaining agents and any interest in a contract on behalf of the Em-
ployer's employees. On April. 2, 1951, the Employer was advised
by Local 578 and Local 1232 that no agreement for a consent election
could be reached and that both Unions proposed to continue picket-
ing until they could come to the Employer and ask for recognition
based upon a showing of cards.
At the hearing both Local 578 and Local 1232 through their at-
torney expressly disclaimed any right "as representation agents, as
bargaining agent for employees" of the Employer; and representa-
tives of both Unions in testifying disavowed any right as bargaining
representative of the Employer's employees. The joint brief of
the Unions contains a formal disclaimer of representative status.
Local 578 and Local.1232 contend that the petitions herein should
be dismissed because they no longer claim to represent any of the
Employer's employees. The Employer contends that the Union's
disclaimer is insincere and equivocal in view of the continued picket-
ing, the use of an unfair employer list, and the activities of union
representatives in advertising the existence of the dispute. The
Unions assert that the picketing is for organizational purposes. Al-
though the activities pointed out by the Employer are 'forms of
economic coercion which indicate a desire by the Unions ultimately
to bargain for the Employer's employees, the Board does not regard
GENERAL PAINT CORPORATION 541
such activities as necessarily inconsistent with a current disclaimer
of representation 2 The activities here engaged in do not, in our
opinion, contravene the Unions' disclaimer of interest. They do not
constitute a present claim to represent the employees involved or a
request for bargaining such as would give rise to an obligation on
the part of the Employer to recognize the Unions as the representa-
tives of its employees. We find, therefore, that no question concern-
ing representation exists at this time, and we shall dismiss the
petitions.
Order
It is hereby ordered that the petitions in Cases Nos. 21-RM-183 and
21-RM-184 be, and they hereby are, dismissed.
CHAIRMAN HERzOG, dissenting:
I would direct an election on this Employer's petition. The facts
in the present record satisfy me that, unlike many other cases in which I
have joined the majority,3 the Unions' disclaimers here did not elimi-
nate the question concerning representation. Their acts, from begin-
ning to end, belie their -words. Their initial demand for recognition
without regard to majority status, and their attempt as late as April
to secure the same results by bringing pressure upon the Employer's
customers, convince me that the "claim to be recognized as the repre-
sentative defined in Section 9 (a)"' persisted to the time that the
record was taken and closed.
MEMBER REYNOLDS, dissenting :
Ever since the Board issued its decision in the Ny-Lint Tool case,
77 NLRB 642, I have considered myself bound by the opinion of the
majority in that case. Although, insofar as my views are concerned,
I see no distinguishing factors in this case, other than that it can be
said to be more illustrative of the inherent unsoundness of the majority
position, I take this opportunity to join the Chairman in dissenting
from the dismissal of the petition herein. However, in so doing, I
desire to reiterate, for the reasons set forth in my dissenting opinion in
the Ny-Lint case, my more basic position that once a union has pre-
sented an employer with a claim to majority representation, it should
not be allowed by a subsequent disclaimer to defeat the right of that
employer to petition the Board for a determination of the question
concerning representation raised by the union's original claim.
2 See Hamilton's Ltd., 93 NLRB 1076; Smith's Hardware Company, 93 NLRB 1009;
Hubach and Parkinson Motors, 88 NLRB 1202.
3 Beginning with the Ny-Lint Tool decision, 77 NLRB 642.
4 Section 9 (c) (1) (B) of the Act.