P. E. Ashton Company, et al.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 9, 1951

93 N.L.R.B. 1286 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

1286 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
employs about 50 office employees, who have the same wage, hour, and
working conditions. There is some interchange of clerical- employees
between the departments. In view of these facts, we find that the in-
terests of the circulation department clerical employees lie with those
of other clericals , rather than with those of outside delivery em-
ployees.6 Accordingly, we shall exclude them from the unit.
We find that the following employees in the circulation department
of the Employer's Ohio State Journal Division, Columbus, Ohio, con-
stitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act:
All city men-morning, city district men-green, State road men,
downtown street supply men,' and city green district drivers, but ex-
cluding truck drivers, city independent haulers, suburban route oper-
ators, city green home delivery men, carriers, mailing room employ-
ees, office and clerical employees, guards, and supervisors g as defined in
the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
9 The American News Company , 71 NLRB 30 . This finding makes it unnecessary to
determine the supervisory status of the auditor who, as an office employee, is excluded
with the other clericals.
4 Including the relief downtown street supply man who works as such 2 days per week.
s Including the circulation director of the Dispatch Printing Company ; circulation
manager ; assistant circulation manager ; district sales managers ; office manager ; suburban
route supervisor ; and State circulation manager.
P. E. ASHTON COMPANY, ET AL .1 and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
MACHINISTS DISTRICT LODGE 114, LOCAL LODGE 1066 , AFL, PETI-
TIONER. Case No. 20-IBC-1240. April 9, 1951
Decision and Direction of Elections
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Eugene K. Kennedy,
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 Houston, Reynolds, and Styles].
+ The following Employers are included in the petition : Central Utah Motor Company ;
A. L. Duckett Sales and Service Inc . ; Burton J. Frampton , d/b/a Frampton Motor
Company ; Ralph P. Naylor, Lawrence G. Naylor, W . N. Richmond and A. N. Thomas, d/b/a
Naylor Auto Company ; Telluride Motor Company ; Clarence H. Harmon and A. J.
Harmon, d/b/a United Sales and Service ; and Wasden Motor Sales Company.
93 NLRB No. 208.
P. E. ASHTON COMPANY, ET AL . 1287
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employers are engaged in commerce within the meaning
of the National Labor Relations Act.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employers.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employers within the meaning of Section
9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The appropriate unit:
The parties agree that any unit found appropriate should include
all journeymen auto mechanics, machinists, electricians, painters,
trimmers, body and fender men, radiomen, and welders, their help-
ers and apprentices, excluding parts men, office and clerical employees,
service station employees, salesmen, janitors, lube and grease men,
utility men, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
The only unit issue presented in this case relates to the scope of
the unit. The Petitioner contends that a single multiemployer unit
consisting of employees of all the Employers is appropriate. In the
event that the Board finds that a multiemployer unit is inappropriate,
'the Petitioner seeks separate units of the employees of each of the
Employers involved herein. The Employers contend that only single-
employer units are appropriate, alleging that there has been no history
of collective bargaining as a multiemployer unit, no association formed
for this purpose, or any other indicia of their intent to participate
in group bargaining.
The record shows that in 1943, four of the instant Employers en-
tered into a single collective bargaining contract with the Petitioner,
which was automatically renewed in 1944 and 1945. In 1946, Mr.
Callister, an attorney representing six of the Employers concerned
herein, negotiated and executed a single contract with the Petitioner
on behalf of those Employers. In 1947, following certification of the
Petitioner by the Utah State Labor Relations Board, as the repre-
sentative of the employees of each Employer in single-employer units,
Mr. Callister negotiated and executed a single contract with the Peti-
tioner on behalf of all eight Employers involved herein. In 1948,
the Petitioner filed a union-shop authorization petition (Case No.
20-UA-1244) with this Board requesting a multiemployer unit. The
Employers involved herein contested thq unit, alleging that only
single-employer units were appropriate. The Petitioner then filed
individual union-shop authorization petitions limited to single-em-
ployer units. Negotiations concerning union-shop and other issues
broke down, and a strike ensued. During the strike the foregoing
petitions were withdrawn. In the fall of 1948, with the aid of the
Utah State Labor Relations Board, a new contract was negotiated,
which omitted any union-security provisions, and was signed by Mr.
1288 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Callister on behalf of all the instant Employers 2 This contract was
,automatically renewed on December 31, 1949, and terminated on
December 31, 1950, by the Petitioner's serving notice of its intention
to modify the contract.
When the Petitioner served this notice, identical letters were sent
to Mr. Callister and the eight Employers involved. Mr. Callister
replied that he now only represented four of the Employers. The
other four Employers failed to reply to the letter, and the Petitioner
upon personally contacting them was told by one of the Employers
"that he wouldn't settle until the rest of them had settled." Another
Employer so contacted challenged the majority status of the Peti-
tioner, and two of the Employers failed to reply to the Petitioner's
letter or personal phone calls. The Petitioner then had several meet-
ings with Mr. Callister as representative of four of the Employers
herein. No other meetings have been held with any of the Employers
and no collective bargaining contract is currently in existence.
The Employers offered the following, in support of their contention
that they have not in fact bargained at any time on a multiemployer
basis :
Mr. Callister, who executed the 1946, 1947, and 1948 agreements testi-
fied that he was retained only on an individual basis, bargained for
the Employers solely on this basis, billed each employer separately,
and had no regular retainer agreement with any of them, being subject
to dismissal by any of them, at any stage of the negotiations, and
that he had always stressed this fact to the Petitioner. The record
shows that the Petitioner sent a letter to one of the Employers during
the 1948 strike requesting individual negotiations, stating, "It is our
position, that because of the Employers rejection of a multiple em-
ployer unit in a case before the NLRB recently, we are no longer
required to deal with the Provo Dealers as a group." No formal
association has ever been orgaiiized by the Employers for the purpose
of negotiating labor contracts.
The Board has held, however, that the essential element warranting
the establishment of multiemployer units is the fact that the Em-
ployers have participated in, and desire to be bound by, group bar-
gaining.3 Assuming, without deciding, that prior to the most recent
contract negotiations, the employees of all the instant Employers
constituted an appropriate unit by virtue of the participation of the
Employers in group bargaining, the question remains whether, as
contended by the Employers, they have effectively withdrawn from
the multiemployer group.
2 Mr Callister did not sign for one of the employers until several months after he had
signed for the other seven.
3 Bunker Hill and Sullivan Mining and Concentrating Company, at at., 89 NLRB 243
and cases cited therein ; Associated Shoe Industries of Southeastern Massachusetts, Inc,
at at., 81 NLRB 224.
GLASS FIBERS, INC. 1289
The Board has held that despite a history of participation by an
employer in group bargaining, should he at an appropriate time
manifest an unequivocal intent to pursue an individual course in his
labor relations, a unit limited to his employees alone would again be
appropriate.' The record in this case reveals that there is no contract
now in effect, and that four of the Employers have terminated Mr. Cal-
lister's authority to represent them in j oint negotiations. Under these
circumstances, we find that the over-all unit of the employees of all
eight Employers sought by the Petitioner is no longer appropriate.
As all parties are in agreement with Petitioner's alternative request
for single-employer units, we find appropriate for purposes of col-
lective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act
separate units composed of the following employees of each of the
eight Employers named below ; excluding, in the case of each Em-
ployer, parts men, office and clerical employees, service station em-
ployees, salesmen, janitors, lube and grease men, utility men, and
supervisors as defined in the Act.
All journeymen auto mechanics, machinists, electricians, painters,
trimmers, body and fender men, radio men, and welders, their helpers
and apprentices employed by P. E. Ashton Company; Central Utah
Motor Company; A. L. Duckett Sales and Service Inc; Burton J.
Frampton, d/b/a Frampton Motor Company; Ralph P. Naylor,
Lawrence G. Naylor, W. M. Richmond, and A. N. Thomas, d/b/a Nay-
lor Auto Company; Telluride Motor Company; Clarence H. Harmon
and A. J. Harmon, d/b/a United Sales and Service; and Wasden
Motor Sales Company.
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication in this
volume.]
* RKO Radio Pictures , Inc, 90 NLRB No. 58 , and cases cited therein.
GLASS FIBERS, INC. and LOCAL 4, MECHANICS EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY
OF AMERICA, PETITIONER'
GLASS FIBERS, INC. and GLASS BOTTLE! BLOWERS ASSOCIATION OF THE
UNITED STATES AND CANADA, AFL, AND ITS LOCAL 54, PETITIONER.r
Cases Nos. 8-RC-1020 and 8-RC-1031. April 9, 1951
Decision and Direction of Elections
Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, consolidated hearings were held on Octo-
' Herein called MESA.
= The name of this Petitioner , herein called GBBA, appears as used at the hearing.
93 NLRB No. 214.