Acryvin Corp. of America

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 20, 1954

107 N.L.R.B. 917 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

ACRYVIN CORPORATION OF AMERICA 917
ACRYVIN CORPORATION OF AMERICA and INTER-
NATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS,
LOCAL 1614, Petitioner. Case No. 2-RC-6121. January 20,
1954
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Aaron Weissman,
hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the
hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby af-
firmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce withinthe meaning
of the Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent em-
ployees of the Employer.'
3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the
representation of employees of the Employer within the mean-
ing of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, for
the following reasons:
The Petitioner seeks a unit of all production ,nd maintenance
employees of the Employer. The Employer and Intervenor
contend that such a unit is inappropriate and that only a
multiemployer production and maintenance unit is appropriate.
Prior to October 1, 1952, the Employer's employees were
not represented for purposes of collective bargaining. On
October 1, 1952, the Employer joined Plastic Products Manu-
facturers Association, Inc., an employer association whichhas
engaged in collective bargaining with the Intervenor on be-
half of its members since 1937 or 1938. In contracting to join
the Association, the Employer agreed to be subject to and
bound by all agreements of the Association that were in force
at that time or that might be made thereafter. On the same date
the Employer executed a separate "certificate of authorization
and assumption" in which it ratified the agreement between
the Association and the Intervenor running from August 4, 1950,
to August 21, 1953, and agreed to be bound by any amendment
or modification adopted and ratified by the Association and
the Intervenor. On November 1, 1952, the Employer, the Inter-
venor, and the Association executed a further document ratifying
the existing agreement between the Association and Intervenor
and changing that agreement in certain respects in its ap-
plication to the Employer. Most of the changes merely reflect
the fact that the existing contract had been adopted by the
Employer after 2 years of its 3-year term had expired. Since
'Plastic Button and Novelty Workers Union, Local 132, ILGWU, AFL, intervened on the
basis of a current contractual interest.
107 NLRB No. 178.
918 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
joining the Association the Employer has been regularly rep-
resented at all its meetings.
On May 21, 1953, the Intervenor notified the Association of
changes to be made in its agreement for the next 3 years.
Thereafter the Association and the Intervenor negotiated a
3-year extension of the previous agreement with a number of
modifications . After the respective memberships of the Inter-
venor and the Association , including the Employer, had
ratified the extension agreement , a written extension agree-
ment was executed by the Intervenor and the Association on
July 24, 1953 . The petition in this case was filed on August 20,
1953.
The Petitioner contends , contrary to the Employer and the
Intervenor , that the Employer ' s history of bargaining as a
member of the multiemployer group has not been long enough
to preclude finding appropriate a single-employer unit in this
case. We do not agree . Since October 1, 1952 , the Employer
has indicated an unqualified desire to participate in multiem-
ployer bargaining . On that date it adopted the existing Associa-
tion agreement and in August 1953 joined in the ratification of
the extension agreement negotiated by the Association. It is
clear , therefore , that the Employer has bargained , and has
recently unequivocally reaffirmed its desire to continue to
bargain, on a multiemployer basis . The Association has
bargained for other employers in the industry from 1937 or
1938 to date . Under all the circumstances we find that the
single-employer unit sought is not appropriate and that a
multiemployer unit comprising the employees of all members
of the Association , including the Employer , is alone ap-
propriate .' As the petition seeks an inappropriate unit , it will
be dismissed.'
[The Board dismissed the petition .]
Member Rodgers took no part in
above Decision and Order.
the consideration of the
2 W. S. Ponton of N. J. Inc., 93 NLRB 924. In that case a multiemployer bargaining history
of approximately 11 months was held controlling , even though the Employer sought to withdraw
from multiemployer bargaining during the term of an existing agreement . See Taylor and
Boggis Foundry Division ofConsolidated Iron-Steel Mfg. Co , 98 NLRB 481, where a 19-month
multiemployer history was held controlling notwithstanding a prior 6-year single employer
bargaining history . See also Denver Heating, Piping and Air Conditioning Contractors, 99
NLRB 251, particularly at footnote 12.
Where the Board has found a brief history of multiemployer bargaining insufficient to pre-
clude single - employer units , the record showed, unlike the situation here , that the multiem-
ployer bargaining had been preceded by prolonged single-employer bargaining. Cf. Van
Iderstine Company, 95 NLRB 966; Jerry Fairbanks , Inc., 93 NLRB 898; Central Optical
Company, et al , 88 NLRB 416; Norcal Packing Company, 76 NLRB 254.
9In view of our decision herein , we find it unnecessary to consider the contract -bar con-
tentions of the Employer and Intervenor