American Radiator and Standard Sanitary Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 29, 1957

119 N.L.R.B. 204 (N.L.R.B. 1957)

204 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
American Radiator and Standard Sanitary Corporation (Louis-
ville Works ) and General Drivers, Warehousemen and Help-
ers, Local Union No. 89, International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America,
AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 9-RC-3108. October 29, 1957
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Alvin Schwartz, 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 National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Leedom and Members
Murdock and Rodgers].
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 herein claim to represent cer-
tain employees of the Employer.'
3. The Employer is a Delaware corporation engaged in the manu-
facture of brass and enamel fixtures. Its only facility involved in
this proceeding is its plant located in Louisville, Kentucky.
The Petitioner seeks to sever a unit composed of approximately 300
employees in 52 classifications from a plantwide unit currently rep-
resented by the Standard Allied Trades Council, AFL-CIO, herein-
after referred to as the Council? The Employer contends that : (1)
The petition is barred by various existing contracts; 3 and (2) the unit
requested by the Petitioner is based upon extent of organization and
is, in any event, inappropriate for bargaining purposes.4
1 The following labor organizations were permitted to intervene in this proceeding on
the basis of their contractual interests : Local No. 214, International Molders and
Foundry Workers Union of North America, AFL-CIO ; Local No. 66, Metal Polishers„
Buffets, Platers and Helpers International Union, AFL-CIO ; Local No. 2971, United
Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America , AFL-CIO ; Local Unions Nos. 681,
1344, and 1390, District Lodge No. 27, International Association of Machinists, AFL-CIO;.
and Standard Allied Trades Council, AFL-CIO. The nature of the contracts between
these unions and the Employer is discussed hereinafter in the text.
2 There are approximately 2,900 production and maintenance employees in the plantwide.
unit currently represented by the Council.
a At the hearing , the Employer urged three separate contracts as a bar to this petition-
However , in its brief filed with the Board , the Employer does not renew this contention
and has presumably abandoned it. In any event , we find no contract bar, as two of the
contracts urged as a bar by the Employer were opened by timely notice and have since
expired, and the third contract alleged as a bar clearly contains no substantive terms, but
merely sets forth the collective -bargaining objectives of the parties in general terms and
an agreed-upon procedure for thereafter reaching agreement thereon. See Bethlehem Steel
Co., 95 NLRB 1508, 1510, and cases cited therein.
4 In view of our decision herein , we find it unnecessary to pass upon this contention
and the motion to dismiss based thereon.
119 NLRB No. 32.
AMERICAN RADIATOR AND STANDARD SANITARY CORPORATION 205
On. July 29, 1941, pursuant to a Board-conducted elections the
Council was certified as exclusive bargaining representative for a
unit composed of "all employees" of the Employer. The Employer
and the Council have since executed successive contracts covering all
the Employer's production and maintenance employees, except ap-
proximately 31 patternmakers,s the most recent contract between these
parties having been in effect from April 21, 1955, to April 20, 1957.
Negotiations for a new agreement were in progress at the date of the
hearing.
The 1955 agreement between the Council and the Employer (like all
prior agreements between these parties) covers many substantive
terms and conditions of employment, and is referred to hereinafter
as the master agreement.' It was negotiated by a bargaining com-
mittee, which included representatives of the 14 local unions affiliated
with the Council, including the Petitioner, and was executed by the
president of the Council and such representatives of the local unions.
Article II of the master agreement states that its purpose is to in-
corporate ". . . all terms and provisions which properly belong in
a collective bargaining agreement, excepting only wages, both straight
time and piece work rates, departmental and/or classification seniority
as provided for in Section 2 of Article V, working conditions, and
hours peculiar to the individual crafts or department involved...."
Article III of the master agreement authorizes the Employer and the
individual local unions to negotiate separately with respect to the
foregoing items. Article II of the master agreement also contains a
clause making all such individual agreements ".. . subject in all re-
spects to the terms and provisions of this Master Agreement. . . ."
Since the first master agreement between the Employer and the
Council in 1941, the 14 local unions affiliated with the Council, in-
cluding the Petitioner, have negotiated supplemental agreements
with the Employer covering specified categories of employees, and
dealing mainly with wages, overtime, and certain aspects of seniority.
These. agreements also implement the union-security and checkoff
provision of the master contract.
Prior to the filing of the petition in the instant case, the Petitioner
requested exclusive recognition by the Employer as bargaining agent
for all employees who hold membership in Petitioner. The Employer
refused this request for exclusive recognition and informed the Peti-
tioner that the Employer would continue to recognize it only to the
limited extent authorized by articles II and III of the Employer's
6 Case No. 9-R-570 (not reported in printed volumes of Board Decisions and Orders).
9 The Patternmakers ' League is currently the separate , certified bargaining representa-
tive for these employees.
4 The substantive terms and conditions of employment contained in the master agreement
includes such matters as union security , seniority , hours of work , arbitration , holidays,
vacations , overtime pay, and a bonus plan.
206 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
master agreement with the Council, the certified bargaining repre-
sentative for the employees involved. At the date of the hearing, a
series of bargaining sessions had already been held,between the Coun-
cil and the Employer relating to a new master agreement.8 The rec-
ord shows that Petitioner's representatives have joined with delegates
from the other local unions which are affiliated with the Council and
have participated in these bargaining meetings with the Employer on
behalf of the Council, the customary collective-bargaining procedure
which has prevailed in negotiating the master agreements since the
Council's certification in 1941.
It is clear that, both prior to, and since the filing of, the petition
in the case at bar, the Petitioner has been participating in the Council's
negotiations with the Employer for a new master agreement in the
same manner as it has participated for the past 17 years. Thus, at the
date of the hearing Petitioner was engaged in bargaining with respect
to the overall unit while at the same time seeking to sever a segment
of that unit.' Furthermore, the Petitioner has evinced no intent to
withdraw from the Council or to abandon its past practice of bargain-
ing for its members through the certified bargaining agent. On the
contrary, Petitioner stated at the hearing that it would adhere to a new
master agreement, if ratified by its members. In view of the forego-
ing, the Petitioner has, in our opinion, taken a position wholly incon-
sistent with its attempt to establish that a question concerning repre-
sentation exists with respect to the employees it here seeks to sever,
and we so find.10 We further find that, in these circumstances, it will
not effectuate the purposes of the Act to permit the Petitioner to pro-
ceed with its petition.ll Accordingly, we shall dismiss the instant
petition.
8 In addition to these meetings , three bargaining sessions had been held between the
Petitioner and the Employer relating to a new supplemental agreement.
9 The Petitioner contends , in effect , that in view of the history of bargaining by the
Petitioner for supplemental contracts the Board should not treat this case as involving
severance but should treat ' the Petitioner as the sole recognized representative of the
.employees covered by its separate agreement and should find that such employees con-
stitute an established , separate unit , and not part of a plantwide unit represented, by the
Council. Petitioner cites Case No. 9-RC-3058 issued on June 14, 1957 (not reported in
printed volumes of Board Decisions and Orders ), involving the instant plant. In that case
a union not affiliated with the Council sought to represent part of , the group of employees
covered by the supplemental agreement between the Employer and Local No. 681, District
Lodge 27,. International Association of Machinists , AFL-CIO. The Board there stated
that the employees sought "are presently in the unit represented by'IAM," and directed it
_self-determination election , placing only the, petitioner and IAM on the ballot . However,
the Board 's action in that case is not to be construed as a, finding that the employees
sought. were not part of a plantwide unit . represented by the Council.' The issue 'whether
the bargaining on 'a plantwide basis or on the basis of separate groups of employees was
controlling for the purpose of determining the appropriate unit was not before the Board,
the sole issue being whether a segment of the group claimed by the JAM might be severed
from the rest of that group. However , upon the record before us, we find that there has
been effective bargaining on a plantwide basis, so that the 'instant petition is in effect one
for severance of part of an existing unit.
Io Hollingsworth & Whitney Division of Scott Paper Company, 115 NLRB 15 lit err
national Paper Coinpany, 115 NLRB 17. '
" Ibid.
OREGON TEAMSTERS' SECURITY PLAN OFFICE 207
We find, therefore, that no question affecting commerce exists con-
cerning the representation of employees of the Employer within the
meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and . Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
Oregon Teamsters' Security Plan Office and William C. Earhart,
Administrator thereof , and of Teamsters Security Administra,
tion Fund , and Warehousemen Local No. 206, affiliated with
the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware
housemen and Helpers of America , AFL-CIO ; International
Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and.
Helpers of America , AFL-CIO and Teamsters Building Asso,
ciation, Inc.; International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf,
feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America , AFL-CIO,,
and its Local No. 223, Grocery, Meat, Motorcycle and Miscel-
laneous Drivers; Warehousemen Local No. 206, affiliated
with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America , AFL-CIO; Inter-
national Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs , Warehouse-.
men and Helpers of America, AFL-CIO and Joint Council of
Drivers, No. 37; International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America , AFL-CIO,
and its agents, John J. Sweeney, and Oregon Teamsters' Se-
curity Plan Office , and William C. Earhart , Administrator
thereof, and of Teamsters Security Administration - Fund and
Office Employes International Union , Local No. 11. Cases Nos.
36-CA-410, 36-CA-637, 36-CA-638, 36-CA-639, 36-CA-647, and
36-CA-61.8. October 30,1967
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER
On January 10, 1955, Trial Examiner Martin S. Bennett issued
his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair
labor practices and recommending that they cease and desist there--
from and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of
the Intermediate Report attached to the original Decision and Order
herein. Thereafter, the Respondents, the General Counsel, and the
Charging Union filed exceptions together with supporting briefs.
On August 25, 1955, the majority of the Board dismissed the com-
plaints with respect to all the Respondents for jurisdictional reasons.'
This decision was affirmed by the United States Court of Appeals for.
1113 NLRB 987 (Members Leedom and Rodgers dissented).
119 NLRB No. 31.