Washington Hardware Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 6, 1951

95 N.L.R.B. 1001 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

WASHINGTON HARDWARE COMPANY 1001
therefrom and take certain affirmative action in order to effectuate the policies of
the Act.
Upon the above findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case, the
undersigned makes the following :
CioNcLUsIONs OF LAW
1. Essex County and Vicinity District Council of Carpenters, A. F. of L., is a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. All Carpenters at the Ivy Hill project of Fairmount Construction Company,
including weatherstrippers, floorlayers, and linoleum layers, but excluding super-
visors as defined in Section 2 (11) of the Act, constitute a unit of employees
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9 (b) of the Act.
3. On or before May 18, 1948, Essex County and Vicinity District Council of
Carpenters, A F of L., was the exclusive representative of all the employees in
the aforesaid appropriate unit for the purposes of collective bargaining within
the meaning of Section 9 (a) of the Act.
4. By demanding from Fairmount Construction Company, and insisting upon,
a collective bargaining agreement making membership in its organization or its
locals a condition of employment without compliance with the proviso in Section 8
(a) (3) of the Act, and by supporting its demand for such a contractual provision
with a threat of strike, a strike, and a refusal to agree to any contract not
containing such a provision, Essex County and Vicinity District Council of
Carpenters, A. F. of L., (a) attempted to cause Fairmount Construction Company
to discriminate against employees in violation of Section 8 (a) (3), thereby
engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (2) of the
Act, and (b) also refused as the exclusive bargaining representative of the
employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit to bargain collectively with Fair-
mount Construction Company, thereby engaging in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8 (b) (3) of the Act.
5. By restraining and coercing employees of Fairmount Construction Company
and of other employers engaged in the delivery of materials to the Ivy Hill project,
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, Essex County and
Vicinity District Council of Carpenters, A. F. of L, has engaged in and is engaging
in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act.
6. The aforesaid labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce
within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication in this volume ]
WASHINGTON HARDWARE COMPANY and PAT DARNTON, PETITIONER and
WAREHOUSE AND PRODUCE WORKERS, LOCAL 599. Case No.19-RD-35.
August 6,1951
Decision and Order
Upon a petition for decertification duly filed, a hearing was held
before Patrick H. Walker, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings
made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby
affirmed.'
i At the hearing the Union moved that the petition be dismissed on the ground that
the unit requested by the Petitioner was inappropriate . For reasons given in paragraph
numbered 3, below, the Union's motion is hereby granted.
95 NLRB No. 122.
1002 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
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 [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 National Labor Relations Act.
2. The Petitioner, an employee of the Employer, asserts that the
Union is no longer the representative of the employees designated
in the petition as defined in Section 9 (a) of the Act.
The Union, a labor organization, is the currently recognized rep-
resentative of the Employer's employees.
3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion 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:
The Petitioner seeks decertification of the Union in a unit of ware-
house employees, limited to employees of this Employer. The Union
contends that this unit is inappropriate because it is only a segment
of a multiemployer unit which the Union has represented for some
time.
For several years the Union has been representing a unit of the ware-
housemen of 12 companies, including the Employer, under a series
of contracts negotiated for the companies by the Industrial Conference
Board. The latest collective bargaining contract was executed by the
Union and the Industrial Conference Board for these companies on
June 1, 1949, for a term expiring April 1, 1951. This contract provided
that it should continue in effect from year to year thereafter in the
absence of a notice served by either party upon the other 60 days before
its expiration date. On January 26, 1951, the Union notified the In-
dustrial Conference Board of its desire to negotiate changes or revi-
sions in this agreement. Thereafter the Industrial Conference Board,
acting for all 12 companies including the Employer, began negotia-
tions with the Union. On May 8, 1951, the Petitioner filed its petition-
herein. On the same day, as soon as the Employer was notified of the
filing of the petition, it wrote the Industrial Conference Board that it
did not wish to be represented by the latter in the current negotiations
with the Union for a new contract.
At the hearing the Employer's treasurer, who is responsible for
the Employer's labor relations, testified that in withdrawing authori-
zation to be represented by the Industrial Conference Board in cur-
rent negotiations, the Employer was acting upon advice of counsel,
and that it did so only to avoid anything "improper or illegal" that
might be involved in continuing to bargain with the Union during the
AMERICAN METAL DECORATING COMPANY 1003
pendency of this petition.a The Employer. has not withdrawn from
membership in the Industrial Conference Board, nor has it indicated
an intent to abandon its practice of. bargaining jointly with the other
employer members of the Board, otherwise than for these employees
during the pendency of this proceeding.3 In these circumstances, we
are unable to find, that the Employer has unequivocally evinced an
intent henceforth to. pursue a course of individual action with regard
to its labor relations 4 Therefore we believe that the bargaining his-
tory on a 'multiemployer basis is controlling in determining the ap-
propriate unit, and we find that a unit comprising only the employees
of this Employer is too limited in scope.' As we have found that the
unit herein proposed is inappropriate, we shall dismiss the petition.
Order
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition filed herein be, and it hereby
is, dismissed.
2 This action , though it may have been laudably motivated , was apparently based on a
misconception of the Employer 's responsibilities and privileges under the Act. See
William Penn Broadcasting Company, 93 NLRB 1104. Cf. Midwest Piping and Supply
Company, 63 NLRB 1060.
A contract was executed by the Industrial Conference Board as of April 1, 1951,
covering a separate multiemployer unit of truck drivers. The Employer, whose drivers
are included in this unit, has not revoked the Industrial Conference Board's authority to
represent it in negotiations for these employees.
' Cf. . Associated Fleet Owners, et al., 90 NLRB No. 169 ; Carnation Company, 90
NLRB 1808.
6 Associated Fleet Owners, supra; Carnation Company, supra ; Society of Independent
Motion Picture Producers , and its Members , 94 NLRB 110.
AMERICAN METAL DECORATING COMPANY and UNITED STEELWORKERS
OF AMERIbA , CIO, PETITIONER . Case No. 13-RC-1893. August
6,1951
Decision and Order
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Helene Zogg, 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].
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.
95 NLRB No. 120.