United Wallpaper, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 8, 1957

118 N.L.R.B. 1007 (N.L.R.B. 1957)

BENJAMIN FRANKLIN PAINT AND VARNISH COMPANY 1007
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the
case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. International Woodworkers of America, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization
within the meaning of the Act.
2. By discriminating with respect to the hire and tenure of employment of Raymond
Roberts thereby discouraging the free exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7
of the Act and discouraging membership in and activities for the above-mentioned
labor organization, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor.
practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of
rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent has engaged, in and is
engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the
Act.
4. All production and maintenance employees of the Respondent at its Antigo,
Wisconsin, operation, excluding office clerical employees, guards, and supervisory
employees as defined in the Act constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of
collective bargaining within the meaning of the Act.
5. By refusing on January 19, 1956, and at all times thereafter, to bargain collec-
tively with International Woodworkers of America, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive
representative of its employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit, the Respondent has
engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8
(a) (1) and (5) of the Act.
6. 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.]
Benjamin Franklin Paint and Varnish Company, a Division. of
United Wallpaper, Inc. and Brotherhood of Painters, Deco-
rators and Paperhangers of America, AFL-CIO, Petitioner.
Case No. 4-RC-3354. August 8, 1957
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION
OF ELECTION
On July 18,1957, the Board issued a Decision and Order dismissing
the petition filed in the above-entitled case.' Thereafter, on July 22,
1957, the Petitioner filed a motion to reopen the record and for re-
consideration. The Employer filed a reply thereto on July 24 and
the Intervenor, Local 107, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, AFL-CIO, filed an
answer on July 30.
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 Leedom and Members Murdock and Bean].
Upon consideration of the motion, the answers, and the entire record
herein, the Board makes the following findings :
1. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion, of certain employees of the Employer within the meaning of Sec-
tion 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
1 Not reported in printed volumes of Board Decisions and Orders.
118 NLRB No. 129.
1008 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The record indicates that in the event the Petitioner is certified
as bargaining representative of the Employer 's employees the Peti-
tioner intends to establish a new local union to represent the employees.
The Intervenor has requested the Board to investigate the current
compliance status of such local union and to dismiss the petition if the
local is not in compliance with Section 9 (f), (g), and ( h) of the Act.
As there is no existing local of the Petitioner admitting the Employ-
er's employees to membership , compliance by the Petitioner is sufficient
for the purposes of this proceeding . Whether the officers of any local
union of the Petitioner that may be established in the future will
comply with the Act is conjectural . The Intervenor 's present ques-
tioning of such compliance is premature .2 Accordingly , we deny the
Intervenor 's request to dismiss the petition insofar as it is based upon
compliance grounds.
2. The Petitioner seeks to represent u unit of the Employer's pro-
duction and maintenance employees . The evidence adduced at the
hearing established that the Employer had engaged in multiemployer
bargaining with the Intervenor for approximately 12 years, covering
its employees and those employed in 3 separate Sears , Roebuck Com-
pany warehouses . The Board therefore found , in its July 1-8, 1957,
Decision and Order , that the bargaining history for the Employer's
employees showed a multiemployer pattern of substantial duration
that rendered inappropriate the unit sought by the Petitioner in view
of the Employer 's failure , at that time , to indicate that it intended to
pursue a course of individual action in its labor relations. As the
Petitioner had an inadequate showing of interest in the then appro-
priate multiemployer unit, the Board dismissed the petition.
The Petitioner's motion to reopen the record and for reconsideration
sets forth the contents of a letter , dated July 15, 1957, that the Em-
ployer had sent to the Intervenor upon the expiration of the Em-
ployer's collective - bargaining contract with that labor organization.
That letter reads , in pertinent part,
I would like to confirm the information you were given a
short time ago that Benjamin Franklin Paint & Varnish Co. is
no longer a subsidiary of Sears , Roebuck R Co. and is now a divi-
sion of an independent corporation named United Wallpaper,
Inc. and that all labor and employee relations of Benjamin Frank-
lin Paint & Varnish Co. are being handled separately and apart
from Sears.
The Employer 's reply to the Petitioner 's motion to reopen admitted
that the Employer had written the July 15 , 1957, letter to the In-
tervenor and independently reiterated the Employer 's "intention now
to conduct its labor and employee relations separately and apart from
Sears, Roebuck and Co. as heretofore."
2 Ozark Manufacturing and Supply/ Company , 108 NLRB 1476.
BENJAMIN FRANKLIN PAINT AND VARNISH COMPANY 1009
The Intervenor's answer to the Petitioner's motion to reopen the
record requests the Board to deny the motion on the alleged ground of
untimeliness. The Intervenor does not, however, question the authen-
ticity of the Employer's July 15, 1957, letter. Moreover, the July 22,
1957, date on the Petitioner's motion to reopen shows that the Peti-
tioner brought the letter to the Board's attention, within days after
receiving it. In such circumstances, we find the Petitioner's motion to
reopen the record was timely filed. We hereby grant the motion and
make the facts contained in the Employer's July 15, 1957, letter to
the Intervenor part of the record of this proceeding.
The Intervenor further contends, in effect, that the Board's July 18,
1957, Decision and Order should not be reconsidered because the Em-
ployer's operations are so completely integrated with those of Sears,
Roebuck Company that they constitute a single employer. The
Intervenor also claims that the Employer did not show "good faith
because of its previous failure" to state that it had decided to act inde-
pendently in its labor and employee relations. Contrary to the In-
tervenor, the record fails to show that the Employer is so integrated
with Sears as to constitute them a single employer within the meaning
of the Act. Indeed, the Board specifically found in the July 18, 1957,
Decision and Order that the record establishes that the Employer, is
"a corporate legal entity separate and apart from Sears." And the
Intervenor has presented no evidence to support its bare assertion
that the Employer is not acting in good faith in its decision to pursue
bargaining for its employees on an individual basis.
As indicated above, the Board initially dismissed the petition in this
case upon the ground that a single company unit was inappropriate
in view of the multiemployer bargaining history, and the lack of
evidence that the Employer had decided to discontinue its participa-
tion in that mutiemployer bargaining. However, in its July 15, 1.957,
letter to the Intervenor the Employer has unequivocally established its
intention to dissociate itself from the multiemployer bargaining in
which it had previously participated and to pursue, at this time, a
course of bargaining on an individual basis. Under these current cir-
cumstances the unit of employees sought by the Petitioner, limited to
the Employer's employees, constitutes an appropriate unit for the
purposes of collective bargaining.' We shall therefore set aside the
Decision and Order issued on July 18, 1957, and direct an election in
the appropriate unit.
We find that all production and maintenance employees at the Em-
ployer's Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, plant, including shipping and
receiving employees and leadmen, but excluding office clerical employ-
ees, laboratory employees, watchmen, guards, and supervisors as de-
s Berghuis Construction Company, et al., 116 RLItI3 1297, 1299.
450553-58-vol. 118-65
1.010 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
fined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of col-
lective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
[The Board vacated the Decision and Order issued on July 18,
1957.]
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
Molinelli , Santoni & Freytes , S. en C., d/b/a Panaderia La Regu-
ladora and Panaderia La Francesa; Puig & Abraham, d/b/a
Panaderia La Bombonera ; Panaderia El Diamante ; Panaderia
La Jerezana ; Panaderia Bairoa, Inc., d /b/a Panaderia Bairoa;
Panaderia La Castellana ; Panaderia Sixto Ortega; La Puerto-
rriquena , Inc., d/b/a Panaderia La Puertorriquena ; Panaderia
La Placita ; Panaderia Los Andes ; Panaderia La Borinquen;
Panaderia La Moderna ; Panaderia Villa Palmeras ; and Ameri-
can Bakery, d/b/a Dixie Bakery Products ' and Union Local, de
Panaderos de San Juan , affiliated with Federation Libre de los
Trabajadores de Puerto Rico, Petitioner . Case No. 24.-RC-966.
August 9,19j7
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 H. Stephen Gordon,
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 Leedom and Members Rodgers and Jenkins].
Upon the entire record in this case,' the Board finds :
1. The parties agree that none of the Employers here involved,
separately considered, meet the Board's jurisdictional standards, but
that, when considered collectively, their combined annual direct in-
flow meets the requirements set forth in the Jonesboro case.' The
Intervenor,4 although admitting that it has in the past entered into
' The names of the Employers appear above as amended at the hearing.
7 Prior to the hearing in this case, Petitioner also filed petitions for separate units of em-
ployees of four of the above .Employers. Cases Nos. 24-RC-968, 24-RC-969, 24-RC-970,
and 24-RC-971. As a result, the Regional Director, on October 23, 1956, ordered that these
cases be consolidated with the instant case for purposes of hearing. At the hearing, how-
ever, Petitioner requested permission to withdraw all its petitions except the one seeking
a multiemployer unit and, upon approval by the Regional Director of this request, it was
granted by the hearing officer.
Jonesboro Grain Drying Cooperative . 110 NLRI; 481.
tiUaion $k1, de Panaderos Reposteros y Ramas Anexas de Puerto Rico, affiliated with
Federation Libre de los Trahajadores de Puerto Rico, herein called the Intervenor.
118 NLRB No. 128.