Slater System Maryland, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 30, 1961

134 N.L.R.B. 865 (N.L.R.B. 1961)

SLATER SYSTEM MARYLAND, INC. 865
tivities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protec-
tion, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, or to refrain from any and all
such activities.
All our employees are free to become or remain or to refrain from becoming
or remaining members of Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers International Union,
AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization.
T. E. MERCER TRUCKING CO.,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Slater System Maryland , Inc.' and United Catering, Restaurant,
Bar and Hotel Workers Local Union 1064 affiliated with Re-
tail, Wholesale and Department Store Union , AFL-CIO, Peti-
tioner. Case No. 7-RC-4397. November 30, 1961
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Charles Fine, hearing officer.
The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from preju-
dicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Members Leedom, Fanning, and
Brown].
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 organizations involved claim to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer?
3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the represen-
tation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section
9(c) (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, for the following
reasons:
On March 21, 1958, the Employer and the Detroit Local of the Hotel
and Restaurant Employees and Bartenders International Union,
signed a collective-bargaining agreement, to become effective June 1,
1958, covering the cafeteria employees at the Roosevelt Park Annex
Post Office in Detroit, Michigan. This contract provided that it would
continue in effect from year to year unless written notice of termi-
1 The name of the Employer appears in the caption as amended at the hearing.
2Hotel and Restaurant Employees and Bartenders International Union, Local Joint
Executive Board, AFL-CIO, was permitted to intervene, at the hearing, subject to Board
review.
134 NLRB No. 82.
630849-62-vol. 184-56
866 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
nation was given at least 60 days prior to the anniversary date. Later,
when it was learned that the post office would be closed and replaced by
a new one to be built at Tenth and Fort Streets, Detroit, the parties
added a clause to the contract which provided that the terms of the
contract would also be applicable to the new post office. On March 10,
1959, the Employer notified the business agent of the Detroit Local
that it would cease cafeteria operations on March 29, 1959, and on that
day the cafeteria was closed. Twenty-six months later, in May 1961,
after being awarded the food service contract, the Employer opened a
cafeteria in the new post office.
On May 12, 1961, the Petitioner filed a representation petition in
which it claimed to represent the five cafeteria employees, none of
whom were employed in the old post office cafeteria. The Hotel and
Restaurant Employees Union then sought to intervene contending
that the old contract never had been terminated, and alternatively that
an agreement settling a lawsuit between the Employer and the Detroit
Local afforded it a sufficient basis on which to intervene. This settle-
ment provided that the former employees at the old cafeteria would
be given preference in hiring additional employees at the new cafeteria.
In view of the colorable contractual claim of the Detroit Local, we
hereby grant its motion to intervene?
The Intervenor asserts two reasons why an election should not be
held at this time. It first argues that the contract operates as a bar to
an election. The Employer takes the position that the nature of the
shutdown of the cafeteria at the old post office operates to remove any
contract bar. The rule applicable to this situation was stated by the
Board in the General Extrusion case.' There we ruled that a contract
will not bar an election if changes have occurred in the nature of firm's
operations between the execution of the contract and the filing of the
petition which involved an indefinite period of closing followed by a
resumption of operations at a new location with new employees. These
are exactly the circumstances which are present here. Accordingly,
we find that the contract between the Employer and the Intervenor
does not bar an election.'
The Intervenor next contends that an election should not be held at
this time due to the fact that as the number of post office employees
expands from its present total of 400 to its full complement of 3,800
by Februal 1, 1962, the number of cafeteria employees will increase
from 5 to at least 12 to 15 and perhaps 25. An official of the Post
Office Department testified that the expansion of the post office force
is fixed and certain. The Employer admitted that when the expan-
sion is completed it would probably need 12 to 15 cafeteria employees
3 John St. George, d/b/a Michele Frocks, 121 NLRB 1273, 1274, footnote 2.
4 General Extrusion Company, Inc, General Bronze Alw,ntite Products Corp., 121 NLRB
1165, 1167.
6 Edward Aaron Corporation, 125 NLRB 840.
SMALL TUBE PRODUCTS, INC. 867
and possibly as many as 25. In these circumstances we agree with the
Intervenor that it would be premature to order an election at this
time. The present number of employees does not constitute a sub-
stantial and representative segment of the total future work force.'
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
0 Cram. et, Inc., 112 NLRB 975.
Small Tube Products , Inc. and International Union, United
Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers
of America , and its Local 981, AFL-CIO. Case No. 6-CA-3111.
December 1, 1961
DECISION AND ORDER
On August 25, 1961, Trial Examiner Arthur E. Reyman issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had not engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged in
the complaint and recommending that the complaint be dismissed in
its entirety, as set forth in the Intermediate Report attached hereto.
Thereafter the General Counsel and the Charging Party filed excep-
tions to the Intermediate Report and supporting briefs, and the Re-
spondent filed a brief in support of the Intermediate Report.
The Board l has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in this
case, and hereby adopts the Trial Examiner's findings, conclusions, and
recommendations except as modified herein.
The General Counsel alleged that the Respondent violated Section
8 (a) (1) and (5) of the Act by the following acts : (1) bypassing Inter-
national Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Imple-
ment Workers of America, and its Local 981, AFL-CIO (hereafter re-
ferred to as the Union), the exclusive bargaining representative, by
bargaining directly and individually with its employees and conduct-
ing an employee poll on August 31, 1960; and (2) withdrawing recog-
nition from the Union on October 28, 1960. The Trial Examiner
recommended dismissal of both allegations. As the record clearly
indicates that the Union acquiesced in the Respondent's conduct in
meeting with small groups of its employees and intimated and di-
rectly participated in the August 31,1960, poll, we agree with the Trial
Examiner's dismissal of the first allegation. However, with respect to
point (2), we disagree with the Trial Examiner's recommendation.
1 Pursuant to Section 3(b) of the Act the Board has delegated its powers in connection
with this case to a three-member panel [Members Rodgers, Fanning, and Brown].
134 NLRB No. 105.