Park & Tilford Import Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 10, 1943

47 N.L.R.B. 411 (N.L.R.B. 1943)

In the Matter Of PARK & TILFORD IMPORT CORPORATION and LOCALS 595
AND 848 OF.INTERNTATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS,
WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, A. F. OF L., AND PARK &
TILFORD MUTUAL ASSOCIATION (INDEPENDENT)
Case No. RE-55.-Decided February 10, 1943
_Jurisdiction : liquor wholesaling industry
Practice and Procedure : employer's petition dismissed when employer's petition
raised no question concerning representation, inasmuch as two of the unions
submitted no evidence of representation and disclaimed any interest in the
proceeding and thiid union had not made any request for recognition.
O'Melveny cC M11yers, by Cllr. Pierce Works, of Los Angeles, Calif.,
'for the Company'
Mr. David Sokol, of Los Angeles, Calif., for Local 595.
Mr. Thomas L. Pitts, of Los Angeles, Calif., for Local 848.
Mr. Jack G. Schapiro, of Los Angeles, Calif., for Mutual.
Mr. Robert Sr,'lagi, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon petition duly filed by Park & Tilford Import Corporation,
Los Angeles, California, herein called the Company, alleging that a
question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation
of employees of the Company, the National Labor Relations Board
provided for an appropriate hearing upon due notice before Daniel
J. Harrington, Trial Examiner. Said 'hearing was held at Los An-
geles, California, on December 31, 1942. The Company, Local 595
and Local 848 of International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf-
feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, A. F. of L., herein
called Local 595 and Local 848, respectively, and Park & Tilford
Mutual Association, herein called Mutual, appeared, participated,
and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and
cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the
47 N. L. R: B., No 55
411
412 DEiC'I[SIIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BO'ARID
issues. The Trial Examiner's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF TILE COMPANY
Park & Tilford Import Corporation is a New York corporation
having its main office in New York City, and maintaining an office in
Los Angeles, California, which alone is concerned in this case. The
Company engages in the business of importing and distributing dis-
tilled spirits and alcoholic liquors. During the fiscal year ending June
30,1942, the Company sent to its Western Division office in Los Angeles,
approximately. 50,000 cases of alcoholic beverages, all of which were
shipped from points outside the State of California. During the
same period, the Company sold and shipped from Los Angeles about
1,610 cases of liquor to customers located outside the State of
California.
The Company admits that its Western Division office is engaged in
commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
H. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Local 595 and Local 848 of International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, affiliated with the
American Federation of Labor, are labor organizations admitting to
membership employees of the Company.
Park & Tilford Mutual Association is an unaffiliated labor organiza-
tion admitting to membership employees of the Company.
III. THE ALLEGED QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
In January 1941, the salesmen of the Western Division office of
the Company formed the Park & Tilford Salesmen's Association,
herein known as the Association. Although no formal request for
recognition was made, the Company's division manager testified that
the organization was in fact recognized despite the fact that he had
never had any occasion, nor was there any apparent reason to bargain
or meet with the representatives of the Association.
In January 1942, Local 595 first began its unsuccessful attempts
to organize the 4 office workers of the Company. Local 595 submitted
a closed-shop contract for signature to the Company and at the same
time demanded that the Company require the office workers to join
Local 595. The Company refused to perform either act, claiming
PARK & TILFORD IMPORT CORPORATION 413
that it would be an unfair labor practice in violation of the Act to
do so. Local 595 then enlisted the aid of Local 848 in its attempts
at organization. Representatives of Local 848 met with the Company
and presented a closed-shop contract for signature, although out of
the 15 employees whom it claimed to have under its jurisdiction,
only 2 warehousemen were members of or were represented by the
Local, and the remaining 13 were salesmen organized bye the
Association.
On March 20, the office workers approached the Association and
asked to be admitted to membership. The Association thereupon
changed its bylaws to permit them to join and also changed its name
to the Park & Tilford Mutual Association. Four days later, Mutual
informed the Company's New York office of the action it had taken
and suggested that the salaries of the office workers be adjusted
to conform to the minimum "Union" scale of $27.50 and $32.50 per
week, depending upon the degree of responsibility of the job. To this
letter the Company never made any reply but shortly thereafter the
wages of the office workers were raised, retroactively to March 1, to
the levels suggested.
Neither Local 595 nor Local 84& ever submitted any evidence of a
majority -or even claimed a majority among the employees whom
they sought to represent, although both demanded that the Company
enter into closed-shop contracts. When the Company refused to accede
to their demands they called a strike on or about June 15, at the Com-
pany's warehouse, established a picket line, placed all the products
-merchandised by the Company on the Los Angeles Food and Drug
Council unfair list, set up a boycott of these products and induced
some of the Company's customers to refuse to market them. On
September 1, the Company filed its petition with the Regional Office
of the Board and on the following day brought an'action in the Cali-
fornia Superior Court for Los Angeles County seeking an injunction
to restrain the picketing and boycott. As the result of a trial held the
following month, the injunction was granted.
On September 4, Local 595 filed a charge alleging that the Company
had engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Sections
8 (1), (2), and (3) of the Act. After making his investigation, the
Regional Director refused to issue a complaint. An appeal was taken
to the Board and on January 20, 1943, we sustained the dismissal by
the Regional Director. At the hearing before the Trial Examiner
neither Local 595 nor Local'848 submitted any proof of representation
among the Company's employees, nor did they claim to represent a
ISee Park d Tilford Import Corporation v International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Local No 848 and No 595, A. F of L.,
et'al , No 479994, October 80, 1942, 11 L R. R 377.
414 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
majority of either the salesmen or the office employees. They dis-
claimed any interest in the proceedings, stating that they did not
desire recognition from. the Company, and, should an election be
ordered, did not wish to appear on the ballot.
Local 595 liltewise made a motion to dismiss the petition in the
present proceeding on the,ground that it was instituted by the Com-
pany in conjunction with the injunction secured during the pendency
of this proceeding, and on the further ground that no 'question
concerning representation had been raised. According to the officers
of both Mutual and the Company, recognition was accorded to Mu-
tual's predecessor shortly after its formation in 1941. Since that time,
with the possible exception of three isolated instances, there has been
no collective bargaining or negotiations between Mutual and the Com-
pany. Mutual has no contract with the Company nor has it ever
requested one, and it has no matters pending on which it is negotiating
with the Company. Assuming without deciding that the recognition
purported to have been given in 1941 is still valid, then no question
concerning representation exists insofar as Mutual is concerned. If,
however, it is assumed that Mutual is not now recognized by the
Company, 'there nevertheless is no representation dispute as between
the Company and Mutual because Mutual has made no present request
for recognition and there has been no denial thereof. _ Nor has any
representation dispute been raised by the claims of Local 595 and
Local 848. Both have disclaimed any interest in this proceeding, and
neither has submitted evidence that it represents a substantial number
of- employees of the Coiipany. Thus the Company could not law-
fully recognize either Local 595 or Local 848 as exclusive bargaining
representatives of its employees, since they do not even claim to repre-
sent a majority. Under these circumstances, we find that- no question
has arisen concerning representation of the employees of the Company
within the meaning of Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, the National
Labor Relations Board hereby, orders that the petition for investiga-
tion and certification of representatives of employees of Park & Til-
ford Import Corporation, Los Angeles, California, filed by Park &
Tilford Import Corporation be, and it hereby is, dismissed.