Acoustical Services, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 20, 1976

222 N.L.R.B. 1009 (N.L.R.B. 1976)

ACOUSTICAL SERVICES, INC. 1009
Acoustical Services , Inc. and J. N. Davis, Petitioner,
and United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners
of America, AFL-CIO, Local No. 198.1 Case
16-RD-664
February 20, 1976
DECISION ON REVIEW AND DIRECTION OF
ELECTION
By CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS FANNING
AND JENKINS
On November 10, 1975, the Acting Regional Di-
rector for Region 16 issued his Decision and Order in
the above-entitled proceeding, in which he dismissed
the decertification petition filed herein on the ground
that the petitioned-for unit was inappropriate, be-
cause it was not coextensive with the recognized unit
and constituted "only a segment of the existing bar-
gaining unit." Thereafter, the Employer filed a timely
request for review on the ground that these findings
were clearly erroneous.
On December 16, 1975, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board, by telegraphic order, granted the request
for review. No briefs on review were filed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the entire record in this
proceeding with respect to the issues under review
and makes the following findings:
The Acting Regional Director found that the peti-
tioned-for unit of "alljourneymen carpenters and ap-
prentice carpenters employed by the Employer at its
Dallas, Texas, location" was inappropriate because it
was not geographically coextensive with the contrac-
tual bargaining unit, which covered the employment
of carpenters in 20 counties? Accordingly, he dis-
missed the decertification petition with the finding
that the Petitioner "is here seeking to decertify a seg-
ment of the existing bargaining unit." The Employer
contends that such findings of fact are erroneous as
the record shows that the Petitioner sought an elec-
tion among the Employer's carpenters, all of whom
i The Acting Regional Director's caption is amended to reflect the name
in which the Union appeared at the hearing herein, conducted on August
11 , 1975, and reopened on October 3, 1975.
2 Tarrant, Johnson, Sommervell, Erath, Palo Pinto, Jack, Hood, Parker,
Wise, Dallas, Collin, Kaufman, Hunt, Delta, Hopkins, Navarro, Ellis, Den-
ton, Cooke, and Rockwall. While the record shows that the Employer has
only one office and warehouse and that it is located in Dallas, Texas, it also
shows that the Employer has employees working in counties other than
Dallas and that 1 percent of the Employer 's business is conducted in coun-
ties other than Dallas County.
would constitute an appropriate bargaining unit. Af-
ter considering the record,' we agree with this con-
tention. We also agree with the further contention
that the fact that the Board does not find appropriate
a unit in the exact form requested in the petition does
not justify dismissing the petition, whether it be for
certification or for decertification 4
In the instant case , the Acting Regional Director
has found a single-employer unit now to be appropri-
ate for bargaining and that the appropriate unit in-
cludes all the Employer's employees.' The past mul-
tiemployer bargaining had been with each union on
an individual union basis for employees of that craft
employed by a participating employer. Under these
circumstances, the present appropriate unit is a sin-
gle-employer unit of all the Employer's carpenters.
Such a unit is also appropriate for decertification.'
Accordingly, we shall reinstate the petition and di-
rect an election therein.
Under the particular circumstances of this case,
there remains a peculiar problem as to the appropri-
ate designation for the union to be named on the
ballot. The Petitioner named Carpenters Local 198 in
the petition. The Employer originally assigned its
bargaining rights with Carpenters Local 198 to the
North Texas Contractors Association which dealt
with the Carpenters District Council of North Cen-
tral Texas of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters
and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, "representing"
three Carpenters Local Unions, Nos. 198, 1526, and
1822, referred to as "Union" in the multiemployer
contract. The Employer and N.T.C.A. notified Car-
penters Local 198 of the withdrawal of bargaining
rights from N.T.C.A. The Acting Regional Director
was "persuaded that both Carpenters Local 198 and
the District Council consented to the Employer's
withdrawal and evidence its intention to thereafter
bargain with the Employer separate and apart from
3 The Hearing Officer asked the parties to state their positions on the
record as to the appropriateness of the unit as described in the petition, i.e.,
"all journeymen carpenters and apprentice carpenters employed by the Em-
ployer at its Dallas, Texas, location " Employer's counsel suggested that the
language was perhaps not broad enough and should be changed by deleting
"at its Dallas, Texas , location." The Union's counsel repeated that "the
bargaining unit [sic] has at all times been the District Council, not Local
198" and that the "unit, as it has traditionally existed has been larger than
Dallas County, and that splintering it off would not be appropriate at all "
After an off-the-record discussion, Mr. Davis, the Petitioner , volunteered
that he had named Local 198 as the Union because the men belonged to it
and paid their dues to it , but that he didn't know what the North Texas
District Council had to do with it. He said that "the majority of the men did
not want the union to represent them . We still don't. We Just want a vote on
it. That's all there is to it." The Hearing Officer said he thought Davis had
"pretty adequately stated that they want an election to apparently de-
termine whether or not whoever represents them at the present time still
does."
4 See Fisher Controls Company, 192 NLRB 514, fn. 2 (1971).
5 In the absence of a request for review thereon, the Board adopts the
Acting Regional Director's findings and conclusions relating to the scope of
the unit.
6 See Bearing & Rim Supply Co., 107 NLRB 101, 103 (1953).
222 NLRB No. 168
1010 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
N.T.C.A." At the hearing herein, counsel appearing
for the Union argued that the recognized union had
been the District Council, not Local 198. Under
these circumstances , we shall place both Carpenters
Local 198 and the District Council on the ballot,
making no attempt to resolve an essentially internal
union matter.'
7 We do not know , and need not determine , whether the District
Council's role as representing the bargaining interests of Carpenters Local
198 in dealing for or with the Employer is cotenunous or separate from the
Employee's participation in the N.T.C A. Obviously, the District Council
may have its name removed from the ballot by timely request to the Region-
al Director.
Having found that a decertification election
should be directed in the single-employer unit sought
by the Petitioner, we shall direct the election in the
following appropriate unit:
All journeymen carpenters and apprentice car-
penters employed by the Employer, but exclud-
ing all resilient floor and decorative covering
workers, clerical employees, guards, and super-
visors as defined in the Act.
[Direction of Election and Excelsior footnote omit-
ted from publication.]