P & V Atlas Industrial Center, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 9, 1952

100 N.L.R.B. 1443 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

ATLAS STORAGE DIVISION, P & V ATLAS INDUSTRIAL CENTER 1443
3. The credited evidence considered as a whole is insufficient to make out or
establish a violation by the Respondent Union of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) and (2),
or either , of the Act, as alleged in paragraphs V, VI, VII, and IX of the consoli-
dated complaint.
[Recommendations omitted from publication in this volume ]
ATLAS STORAGE DIVISION , P & V ATLAS INDUSTRIAL CENTER, INC. and
R. THOMAS BUSCH, PETITIONER and CHAUFFEURS, TEAMSTERS &
HELPERS GENERAL LOCAL UNION No. 200, INTERNATIONAL BROTHER-
HOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN & HELPERS OF
AMERICA , AFL. Case No. 13-RD-123. October 9, 1952
Decision and Order
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Joseph Cohen, hear-
ing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are
free from prej udicial 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 Murdock and Peterson].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds: I
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The Petitioner asserts that the Union is no longer the repre-
sentative 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 representative of the Employer's employees,
who are part of a multiemployer bargaining unit.
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 inland
warehouse employees, limited to the employees of this Employer.
The Union contends that the above unit is inappropriate, because it
is but a segment of a multiemployer unit which the Union has repre-
sented for some time.
Since 1937, the Union has bargained with a committee of the Mil-
waukee Warehousemen's Association, which represented the instant
i The Union moved to strike the Employer 's reply brief. As special leave of the Board
to file a reply brief was not obtained , the Union 's motion is granted. Peerless Yeast Com-
pany, 86 NLRB 1098. Accordingly , the Employer ' s brief was not considered by the Board
100 NLRB No. 233.
227260-58-vol . 100-92
1444 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Employer and other inland warehouse companies. The contracts
consummated through these joint negotiations were signed by both
the Association and the individual employers. Although the practice
was changed in 1948, in that the Association ceased to be a party
signatory to the collective agreements, the past practice of employer
participation in negotiations through the appointment of association
bargaining committees continued. With few exceptions, the employer
members of the Association now individually sign one contract.
The last collective bargaining contract was executed on April 16,
1950, modified on December 15, 1950, and terminated on April 15,
1952. 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 anniversary date. On Febru-
ary 4, 1952, the Union notified the Employer of its desire to negotiate
changes in the agreement. Negotiations were conducted between the
Association's committee and the Union. No agreement was reached
and no new contract has been executed. On April 18, 1952, the Peti-
tioner filed his petition herein. Upon receipt of a notice of representa-
tion hearing, the Employer, on May 14, 1952, informed the Union
of its withdrawal of recognition of the Union as the bargaining rep-
resentative of its inland employees, and its withdrawal of the authority
previously granted to the Association's committee to represent it in
bargaining negotiations with this Union?
In accordance with the Union's contentions, we find that the pattern
of bargaining described above has been multiemployer in nature .s
The fact that the committee negotiating with the Union had no au-
thority to bind the Employer and the further fact that the Employer
reserved the right to give final approval to any agreement reached
through such negotiations are not controlling, and do not justify a
finding that a single employer unit is appropriate 4 As the Employer
has participated in joint bargaining with the Union for many years
through the Association's committees, we find that a multiemployer
unit including employees of this Employer has been established.5
The Employer has not taken the steps required for severance of its
employees from the multiemployer unit. Nowhere does the record
show that the Employer has withdrawn from membership in the
2 The Employer has two divisions , one inland and one water front, both being association
members. Only the former is involved here. Negotiations concurrent with those affecting
these inland warehouse employees have been conducted for many years between the Asso-
ciation's committee and Local 815, International Longshoremen 's Assn, AFL, encompass-
ing all water front warehouse ' employees . This multiemployer bargaining resulted in the
execution of a contract on April 15 , 1952, between the Employer 's water-front division'and
the Longshoremen . The Employer has not revoked the Association 's authority to represent
it in negotiations for these employees.
3 Fish Industry Committee, 98, NLRB 696.
4 Bryant's Marina , Inc., 92 NLRB 718.
0 We need not now decide which employer members of the Association should be included
within such multiemployer unit.
CANS, INCORPORATED 1445
Association. Nor has the Employer indicated an intent to abandon its"
practice of bargaining jointly with other employer members of the
Association for its water-front employees. In these circumstances, we
find that the Employer has not unequivocally evinced an intent to
pursue a course of individual action with regard to its labor relations.6
As the Employer has not effectively severed itself from the Associa-
tion, we believe the above bargaining history is controlling in
determining the appropriate unit in this proceeding. Thus, we find
that the proposed unit, encompassing solely the employees of this Eln-
ployer, is too limited in scope. The proposed unit being inappropriate,
we shall dismiss the petition.
Order
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition filed herein be, and it hereby
is, dismissed.
6 Washington Hardware Company, 95 NLRB 1001 , and cases cited therein ; Pioneer
Incorporated, 90 NLRB 1848 ; Coca Cola Bottling Works Company, 91 NLRB 351.
CANS, INCORPORATED and DISTRICT No. 8, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION
OF MACHINISTS, AFL, PETITIONER. Cases Nos. 13-RC-2684 and
13-RC--2750. October 9,1952
Decision and Direction of Elections
Upon separate petitions duly filed, a consolidated hearing was held
before Rush F. Hall and John P. von Rohr, hearing officers., The
hearing officers' rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial
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
these cases to a three-member panel [Members Houston, Styles, and
Peterson].
Upon the entire record in these cases, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the National Labor Relations Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.2
3. Questions affecting commerce exist concerning the representation
of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c)
(1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
I The hearing on June 6, 1952 , was held before Rush F . hall ; the hearing on June 13
was conducted before John P. von Rohr.
3 United Steelworkers of America , Local No . 8745 , CIO, herein called the Intervenor, was
permitted to intervene in this proceeding on the basis of Its recently expired contract with
the Employer.
100 NLRB No. 239.