Avondale Dairy Co., et al.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 15, 1950

92 N.L.R.B. 89 (N.L.R.B. 1950)

In the Matter of AVONDALE DAIRY CO., ET AL .,1 EMPLOYERS and
LOCAL 98, MILK AND ICE CREAM EMPLOYEE'S UNION, INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS , CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND
HELPERS OF AMERICA, AFL , PETITIONER
Cases Nos. 9-UA-1106 to 9-UA-1505 and 9-UA-1533 to 9-UA-1543.-
Decided November 15, 1950
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon petitions duly filed a hearing was held before Seymour Gold-
stein, hearing officer. The hearing officer's ruling made at the hearing
are free from prejudicial 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 [Members Houston, Reynolds, and Styles].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employers are engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.,
'2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain
employees of the Employers.
3. The question concerning authorization of union shop : _
.For a number of years, the Petitioner and the Employers involved
herein have negotiated collective bargaining, agreements covering the
employees concerned. As is detailed hereinafter, negotiations have
I Petitions herein were consolidated on August 22, 1950, and involve the following
Employers : Joseph Druehe and Caroline Heile, a Partnership, d/b/a Avondale Dairy Co. ;,
Anna Krechtling , a sole proprietorship , d/b/a Bosse Dairy ; Cedar Hill Farms , Inc., Joe'
Hollmann and Fred Hollmann , a Partnership , d/b/a Hollmann Bros . Dairy ; The Hyde.
Park Dairy Company ; Harry S. Mandery , a sole proprietorship , d/b/a John C . Mandery
& Sons ; H. Miller Dairy Company , Inc. ; Emma H . Myers , a sole proprietorship, d/b/a
L. Myers Dairy ; Summe & Ratermann Company, Inc. ; Dale Grace , John Grace , Jr., James
Grace & Thomas Grace, a Partnership , d/b/a Willson Dairy Products ; The Kaesemeyer
& Sons Company ; John Trenkamp, Joseph Trenkamp , and Lawrence Trenkamp , a Partner-
ship , d/b/a John Trenkamp Dairy ; Emmert J. Marschman , a sole proprietorship, d/b/a
Clover Leaf Dairy ; The H. Meyers & Sons Dairy Co. ; Opekasit , Inc. ; The Woodmont Dairy
Co. ; George Rehkamp and Joseph Kahmann , Jr., a Partnership , d/b/a Kahmann & Reh-
kamp ; Fred H. Plapp, a sole proprietorship , d/b/a Highland Park Dairy ; The J. H..
Berling 's Dairy ; Dilg Dairy , Inc. ; Wehr Dairy, Inc.
2 As we hereafter conclude that a multiemployer unit is appropriate and as the totality
of the operations of the Employers involved warrant our 'asserting jurisdiction , we need.
not determine whether we would assert jurisdiction were the Employers before us
individually.
92 NLRB No. 23.
89
90 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD •
been on a multiemployer basis, followed by the execution of identical
contracts by the individual employers. The latest agreement nego-
tiated is effective as of August 1, 1950, for a 1-year period.
The Employers currently recognize the Petitioner, and we find that
no question affecting commerce exists concerning the representation
of employees of the Employers in the unit sought by the Petitioner.
4. The appropriate unit :
The Petitioner contends that the appropriate units for union-
security elections in this proceeding are separate employer units.
The Employers contend that such units are too limited in scope and
the only appropriate unit is a single multiemployer unit.
The record shows that the 21 Employers involved herein and a
number of other employers, not parties to this proceeding, together
comprise the milk and ice cream dealers of the greater Cincinnati,
Ohio, area, and Campbell and Kenton Counties, Kentucky. In
various combinations, these Employers have had joint bargaining
relationships with the Petitioner since 1913. For most of this period
these companies informally designated a committee of 3 members
from the industry who represented all the companies, including. the
21 involved herein, in collective bargaining negotiations. Although
there was no formal association , no name to the group, and no officers
or funds, the various companies considered themselves bound by
the collective bargaining negotiations of the committee. Contracts
were signed by the individual companies at the termination of nego-
tiations. Such contracts were substantially uniform, differing only
with respect to their treatment of problems peculiar to a particular
company.
In May 1949, approximately 53 dairy companies , including the 21
Employers before: us, entered into a written contract in which they
created a 9-man committee to represent them in negotiating a new
agreement with the Petitioner, with authority to bind them in any
agreement reached. Costs incurred during negotiation were prorated
among the 53 companies who, at the conclusion of the negotiations,
entered into a uniform , individually signed collective bargaining
agreement , effective August 16, 1949, for a term of 1 year.
On April 14, 1950, approximately 47 dairy companies , including
the 21 Employers herein , again entered into an agreement similar to
the 1949 agreement to bargain jointly with the Petitioner. The com-
mittee again entered into negotiations , and a collective bargaining
agreement effective August 1, 1950, was agreed upon. At the time
of the hearing, some of the companies had already executed individual
uniform contracts and other companies indicated that they expected
to, or were in the process of, executing similar uniform agreements.
AVONDALE DAIRY CO. 91
From these facts it is clear that the Employers involved herein, by
their. participation with other employers in their industry in multi-
employer bargaining, have indicated an intent to be bound by group
rather than individual action in collective bargaining. Accordingly,
if this proceeding involved petitions for representation under Section
9 (a) of the Act, we could find, in accord with well-established prec-
edent, that units limited to the employees of the individual employers
were inappropriate.3
Although the present case is a proceeding for a union-authorization
election under Section 9 (e) of the Act, we have held that:
In the absence of any compelling reason for finding the unit in
a 9 (e) proceeding to be smaller or different from the unit which
we would normally find appropriate in a 9 (a) proceeding (such
as that present in the Giant Food case) we believe that the unit
appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining under 9 (a) is
also the appropriate unit for purposes of union security elections
under Section 9 (e) (1) of the Act.'
In the instant case, as noted above, individual employer units, as
sought by the Petitioner, would be inappropriate in a 9 (a) proceed-
ing, and no persuasive reason has been suggested for reaching a dif-
ferent result in a 9 (e) election. The Petitioner directs our attention
to the fact that : (1) Union-authorization elections have already been
held among the employees of certain of the individual employers,
who have been a part of the multiemployer bargaining; 5 and .(&^
there are variations in the contracts with some of the employers.
Neither of these factors is sufficient in our opinion to warrant con-
cluding that the multiemployer unit is not the appropriate unit for
the purposes of a 9 (e) -election. The union-authorization elections
which have been held on an individual employer basis have been pur-
suant to consent agreements and are not binding upon us in the deter-
mination of the appropriate unit. As to the contract variations, we
have already noted that such variations have been insubstantial, and
directed merely at accommodating the contracts to the individual prob-
lems unique in a particular plant. They do not render the multi-
employer unit inappropriate. -
8 See Association of Motion Picture Producers, Inc., et at ., 85 NLRB 902 and cases
cited therein.
9 Furniture Firms of Duluth, 81 NLRB 1318 . The case referred to in the quotation,
Giant Foods Shopping Center, Inc., 77 NLRB 791, dealt with the effect upon a 9 (e)
unit of the fact that part of the employees in such unit were in States prohibiting union-
security agreements,
None of these involved any of the 21 Employers involved . herein.
92 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
In these circumstances we conclude that the individual units sought
by .the Petitioner are inappropriate for a 9 (e) election. Accord-
ingly, we shall dismiss the petitions herein.
ORDER
IT is HEREBY ORDERED that the petitions filed herein be, and they
hereby are, dismissed.