H. Muehlstein and Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 9, 1951

93 N.L.R.B. 1273 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

II. MUEHLSTEIN AND CO. 1273
Beginning in 1942, Perth Amboy executed a series of collective
bargaining contracts with the Petitioner's predecessor and the Peti-
tioner, the most recent of which was dated October 14, 1948, and ex-
pired on April 9, 1949. The, 1942 and 1943 contracts covered all
employees of Perth Amboy, including the office clericals; those exe-
cuted subsequently excluded office clericals and embraced a unit sub-
stantially similar to that sought by the Petitioner in this proceeding.
The Petitioner contends that, in view of the past bargaining history
in a separate unit of the Employer's Perth Amboy employees, such
a unit is currently appropriate. However, the bargaining in the
Perth Amboy unit occurred when that operation was under separate
ownership, and is by no means conclusive as to the feasibility of such
unit under the present circumstances. Furthermore, as we have fre-
quently stated, system-wide units are normally the most appropriate
bargaining units for employees of public utilities.5 This is particu-
larly true where, as here, the Employer's operations are highly inte-
grated and interdependent in character and a labor organization is
prepared to represent the employees on a system-wide basis. In these
circumstances, we are of the opinion that the factors in support of a
system-wide unit for the Employer's employees outweigh the bar-
gaining history on a less comprehensive basis relied upon by the Peti-
tioner. Accordingly, as no reason exists in this case for departing
from our established policy in the public utility industry, we find that
the unit sought by the Petitioner is inappropriate for purposes of col-
lective bargaining, and shall dismiss the petition .13
Order.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition filed herein be, and it hereby
is, dismissed.
'Public Service Electric and Gas Company of New Jersey , 81 NLRB 1191 ; Niagara
Hudson Power Corporation, 79 NLRB 1115 ; The Laclede Gas Light Company, 77 NLRB
354; Duquesne Light Company, 57 NLRB 770.
6 Cf. Kentucky Utilities Company , 81 NLRB 1006.
H. MUEHLSTEIN AND Co. and UAW-AFL, AMALGAMATED LOCAL 286,
PETITIONER . Case No. 13-RC-1740. April 9, 1951
Decision and Order
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Herbert B. Mintz, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
93 NLRB No. 221.
1274 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
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 Houston, Reynolds, and St_yles],.
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 employees
of the Employer.
3. The Employer is engaged in the reprocessing of thermoplastic
materials at its Chicago, Illinois, plant. On December 7, 1950, the
Employer and Rubber Plastic Workers Local 82, Distillery, Rectify-
ing and Wine Workers International Union of America, AFL, entered
into a 2-year contract covering employees at the plant, which they
urge as a bar to this proceeding. The Petitioner contends that (1) the
expansion of the plant since the execution of the contract, and
(2) failure of employees involved to authorize or ratify the contract,
or even to know of its existence, prevent the contract from operating
as a bar to an immediate choice of representatives.' We disagree.
As to (1) : Active operations begin at the plant in November 1950.
On December 7, when the contract was executed, there were 22 em-
ployees in the unit. This number increased to between 25 and 30 on
January 12; 1951, at the time the petition was filed, and to approxi-
mately 40 on February 14, at the time of the hearing. The Employer
expects to reach a total of approximately 50 employees. Although
there has been a substantial increase in the size of the unit since the
contract was executed, there has been no material change in the scope
or character of the unit or in the Employer's operations. The em-
ployees who constituted the Employer's working force when the con-
tract was executed are representative of the employees currently
within the unit and the Employer's anticipated further expansion.2
As to (20) : There is nothing in the record to indicate that the con-
tracting union is not actively functioning as a labor organization.
The Board does not inquire into the majority status of a labor organi-
zation in a contract bar issue in a representation case ,3 nor the
i During the course of the hearing , an examination of the contract revealed a proposed
union -shop provision and a deferment clause making such provision inoperative until
authorization for it should be obtained through a union-authority election . The parties
disagree as to whether this union -shop provision exceeds the limitations set forth in
Section 8 ( a) (3) of the Act. We find this issue not material The deferment clause
is not equivocal . It is clear that no union -shop election has been held and no authorization
to enter into a union-shop agreement has issued . The disputed union-shop provision,
therefore , even if illegal , is by its own terms inoperative and therefore does not, per se,
render the contract ineffective as a bar to an election . Worthington Pump and Machsnery
Corporation , 93 NLRB 527 ; Gulf Shipside Storage Corporation, 91 NLRB 181.
2 Decker Clothes, Inc., 83 NLRB 484.
® Electro Metallurgical Company, 72 NLRB 1396.
ILLINOIS BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY 1275
limitation of its powers imposed by its own constitution to negotiate
a binding contract'
Under these circumstances, we find that the contract is a bar to a
determination of representatives at this time and therefore that no
question affecting commerce exists concerning the representation of
employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1)
and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. We shall dismiss the petition
filed herein.
Order
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition herein be, and it hereby is,
dismissed.
Farrell-Cheek Steel Company , 88 NLRB 303.
ILLINOIS BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY- and J. A. ELENTENY , AN INDI-
VIDUAL ACTING ON BEHALF OF ALL COMMUNICATIONS ENGINEERS,
PETITIONER and COMMERCIAL TELEPHONE WORKERS UNION, INTER-
VENOR . Case No. 13-RD-86. A p241 9, 1951
Decision and Order
Upon a decertification petition duly filed, a hearing was held before
Irving M. Friedman, 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 [Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Reynolds].
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 Petitioner, an employee of the Employer, asserts that the
Intervenor, although currently recognized as such, is no longer the
representative of certain of the Employer's employees as defined in
Section 9 (a) of the Act.
3. The alleged question concerning representation :
The Petitioner seeks to decertify the Intervenor as representative of
a group of 92 employees, called communications engineers, who are
' We find that the exclusion of Petitioner 's Exhibits 6 to 15 was not prejudicial. These
exhibits purport to show, at most, that some employees in other parts of the telephone
industry , resembling the communications engineers whom Petitioner seeks to sever from
the unit, function on the management level. The Petitioner concedes in his brief , however,
that the Employer 's communications engineers are nonmanagerial . See Northwestern
Bell Telephone Company, 79 NLRB 549, 655.
93 NLB No. 226.