Adams Coal Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 30, 1957

118 N.L.R.B. 1493 (N.L.R.B. 1957)

ADAMS COAL COMPANY, INC. 1493
9. It is not necessary or prudent to rule upon the contention that the ILA pressed
demands for coastwide bargaining to such an extent that its conduct , in fact, amounted
to bad-faith bargaining within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (3) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
Adams Coal Company, Inc. and Coal, Gasoline, Fuel Oil Team-
sters, Chauffeurs, Helpers, Oil Burner Installation , Mainte-
nance Service Men and Helpers Local 553, IBT, AFL-CIO,
Petitioner. Case No. 2-RC-8810. September 30,1957
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Harry F. Knowlton, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from
prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. Enterprise Association, Metal Trades Branch of Local 638,
United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing
and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL-
CIO, herein called the Plumbers, asserts that the petition is barred by a
contract between it and the Employer, covering the oil burner men and
installation men, effective from April 4, 1955, until June 30, 1957, and
thereafter until a new contract is executed, absent 60 days' notice of
modification or termination given by either party to the other. We
find no merit in this contention for, apart from other considerations,
the petition herein was filed on April 15, 1957, 15 days prior to the
Mill B date of contract.
4. The Petitioner seeks an overall unit of truckdrivers, helpers, yard-
men, and oil burner installation and servicemen at the Employer's
New York City location. The Employer agrees that the unit sought
by the Petitioner is appropriate. The Plumbers, however, assert that
the appropriate unit is one limited to the oil burner installation and
service employees represented by it.
The Employer sells fuel oil and coal. It employs yardmen to load
-and unload coal and fuel oil, truckdrivers and helpers to deliver these
products, and oil burner installation and servicemen to repair oil
burners and heating equipment. The oil burner installation and serv-
icemen have different working hours and grievance procedures, are
paid on a different payroll, and have somewhat higher skills than yard-
men- and truckdrivers. In addition, as previously noted, they have
been separately represented by the Plumbers since at least 1955.
118 NLRB No. 202.
1494 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The plantwide unit sought by the Petitioner may be appropriate for
the purposes of collective bargaining. However, it is clear that the
oil burner installation and servicemen currently represented by the
Plumbers may also constitute an appropriate bargaining unit on the
basis of bargaining history I and that the remaining unrepresented
employees may constitute an appropriate unit on a residual basis.'
We shall, therefore, make no final unit determination at this time, but
shall direct separate elections by secret ballot among the employees
in the following two voting groups at the Employer's New York City
location, excluding from each office clerical employees, guards, and
supervisors as defined in the Act :
Group 1: All oil burner installation and servicemen.
Group 2: All truckdrivers, helpers, and yardmen.
As both labor organizations have an adequate showing of interest
among the employees in voting group 1, we shall place the names
of both organizations on the ballot in the election among these em-
ployees. As it appears that the Plumbers have no showing of interest
among the employees in voting group 2, we shall place only the Peti-
tioner's name on the ballot in the election among these employees.
If the plumbers win the election in group 1; or if the Petitioner wins
in group 1 or 2 alone, then the employees in group 1 or 2, as the case
may be, will be taken to have indicated their desire to constitute a sepa-
rate unit and the Regional Director conducting the elections directed
herein is hereby instructed to issue a certification of representatives
to the bargaining agent so selected for such, separate unit, which the
Board, in the circumstances, finds to be appropriate for purposes of
collective bargaining.
If, however, the Petitioner wins the elections in both voting groups,3
the employees in these groups will be taken to have indicated their
desire to constitute a single combined unit and the Regional Director
is instructed to issue a certification of representatives to the Petitioner
for such combined unit, including therein the employees in both groups
1 and 2, which the Board, in the circumstances finds to be appropriate.
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.]
MEMBERS MURDOCK and BEAN took no part in the` consideration of the
above Decision and Direction of Elections.
I Mountain States Bean Company, 115 NLRB 1208 ; Illinois Cities Water Company, 87
NLRB 109.
2 Pollock Paper Corporation, 115 NLRB 231.
a See Mountain States Bean Company and Pollock Paper Corporation, supra. The tech-
nique of "pooling," as adopted in American Potash & Chemical Corporation , 107 NLRB
1418, 1427, is inapplicable to a situation such as this , in which it is sought to merge
in a single unit a previously unrepresented group and an existing unit. Insofar as it is
inconsistent herewith , Long Electric Sign Co., 109 NLRB 770 , 772, is hereby overruled.