Kenosha Auto Transport Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 10, 1952

98 N.L.R.B. 482 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

482 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the Association, and the Intervenor signed an agreement terminating
the individual contract between the Employer and the Intervenor,
and binding the Employer to the existing conference agreement which
covered the association-wide unit. The Employer has continued
to be a member of the Association and to be bound by association-wide
contracts .3 The Petitioner filed its petition on October 31, 1951.
Sine( joining the Association, the Employer has been bound by three-
successive association wide contracts. Two of these were signed before
the Petitioner made its rival claim of representation. The Employer's
inclusion in the association-wide unit under the terms of these two
agreements has extended over approximately 19 months. We believe
that this is a sufficiently long period to preclude the establishment
now of a single employer unit .4 We find that the Petitioner's proposed
unit is inappropriate. We shall therefore dismiss the petition.
Order
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition filed herein be, and it hereby
is, dismissed.
9 The Employer and the Intervenor do not claim that the existing association-wide
contract , which will not expire until December 31, 1952, is a bar.
4 In The Manufacturers ' Protective & Development Association ( Consolidated Iron-Steed
Manufacturing Company, Taylor and Boggis Division ), 95 NLRB 1059 , issued August 13,
1951, a union -security election case involving the same Employer , a majority of the Board
directed an election in a single employer unit, holding that a one year history `of association-
wide bargaining was too brief to make this broader unit the only appropriate one. At the
present time, however, this bargaining history has extended over almost 2 years
KENOSHA AUTO TRANSPORT CORPORATION and TRUCK DRIVERS UNION,
LOCAL 654) INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS , CHAUF-
FEURS , WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, AFL , PETITIONER.
Case No. 9-RC-1430. March 10, 1952
Decision and Order
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Richard C. Curry, 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 Herzog and Members Houston and Murdock].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
1 The Employer 's motion to dismiss is granted for reasons hereinafter stated.
98 NLRB No. 85.
KENOSHA AUTO TRANSPORT CORPORATION 483
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent employees
of the Employer.
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 to represent a unit consisting of all office and
clerical employees at the Employer's terminal in Springfield, Ohio:
The Employer as the basis for its motion to dismiss contends that the
only appropriate unit consists of all office and clerical employees of
the employer members of an association in the Springfield, Ohio,,area 3
From 1937 to 1947 the Employer and the Petitioner have had col-
lective bargaining agreements covering the truck drivers -and yard-
men of this Employer. Beginning with 1947 there was created an
informal association of employers,4 all of whom are engaged in the
salve business with terminals at Springfield. Since 1947 these em-
ployers have negotiated jointly with the Petitioner concerning wages
and working conditions for all their truck drivers and yardmen and
have executed contracts embodying their agreements. The last con-
tracts expire in February and March 1952.
There is no history of collective bargaining covering the clerical
employees of the Employer or the clerical employees of the other
employer-members of the Association.
The clerical employees of the Employer, herein sought, are engaged
in general clerical work including work on payrolls, attendance rec-
ords, freight records, billing, accounts receivable, loss and damage
records, and workmen's- compensation. They work in one room and
are under supervision separate from that of the drivers and yardmen.
However, like the drivers and yardmen, they are hourly paid, receive
comparable wages, and enjoy the same benefits.
It is clear that for at least 5 years the members of the informal
Association have participated in joint bargaining negotiations as to
drivers and yardmen and have adopted contracts resulting from such
negotiations. Under these circumstances, we find that the participat-
ing employers have manifested a desire to be bound in their labor rela-
tions generally by joint rather than individual action. Thus, an estab-
lished pattern of multiemployer bargaining exists, which, in accord-
2 Employer , an Ohio corporation having Its principal offices In Kenosha , Wisconsin,
is engaged in the sale of transportation services of new motor vehicles and operates
terminals in 11 States. The only terminal herein involved is at Springfield.
s At the hearing, the Employer took an alternative position, that If the Board should
,Ind a single employer unit appropriate, the Board should refuse to allow the Petitioner to
represent the clerical employees on the ground of the confidential nature of their work
with reference to the other employees represented by the Petitioner . - Because of our
holding herein , we find It unnecessary to consider the Employer ' s alternative position on
the unit issue.
4 The members of the Association are : The Employer , Howard Sober, Inc., Fugate &
Girton Drive-A-Way Co, and United Transports, Inc.
484 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ante with our prior decisions,5 controls the type of unit appropriate
for the office and clerical employees.
Accordingly, we find that a multiemployer unit consisting of the
office and clerical employees of the four employer members named
herein, constitutes an appropriate unit for purposes of collective bar-
gaining and that a unit limited to the office and clerical employees of
a single employer is inappropriate. We shall therefore dismiss the
petition.
Order
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition herein, be and it hereby is,
dismissed.
5 Columbia Pictures Corporation, 84 NLRB 647; Columbia Marble Company, 89 NLRB
1482 ; Port Angeles Automobile Dealers Association, 91 NLRB No . 206; cf. Alabama Power
Company, 93 NLRB No. 190.
BELKNAP HARDWARE & MANUFACTURING COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL
UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE WORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL, PETI-
TIONER. Case No. 9-RC-1168. March 10, 1952
Supplemental Decision and Order
On September 13, 1951, pursuant to a Decision and Direction of
Election issued by the Board,' an election by secret ballot was con-
ducted under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director
for the Ninth Region among the employees in the unit found to be
appropriate. Upon completion of the election, a tally of ballots was
issued and duly served upon the parties. The tally shows that of
approximately 522 eligible voters. 513 cast ballots, of which 131 were
for the Petitioner, 351 against the Petitioner, and 31 were challenged.
Thereafter, the Petitioner filed timely objections to the election.
On December 10, 1951, the Regional Director issued his report on objec-
tions to the election, in which he recommended that a hearing be
ordered to resolve the issues of fact raised by the objections. There-
after, in conformity with a Board order, a hearing was held before
Lloyd R. Fraker, hearing officer, on January 15, 1952. The hearing
officer issued no report. The Employer filed a timely brief following
the hearing.
The Petitioner's chief objection 2 is that the Employer interfered
with the election by making an antiunion speech on company time and
property on the morning of the election, while denying the Union an
equal opportunity to address the employees.
196 NLRB 157.
2 The Petitioner also objected to the election on the ground that sample ballots which
had been posted on the bulletin boards had been defaced with knowledge of the Em-
ployer. As the Union 's representative stated at the hearing that no evidence would be
adduced in support of this objection , it will not be further considered.
98 NLRB No. 88.