Bur-Bee Co.--Walla Walla, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 31, 1950

90 N.L.R.B. 9 (N.L.R.B. 1950)

In the Matter of BUR-BEE COMPANY-WALLA WALLA, INC., AND BUR-
BEE COMPANY-PASCO, INC., EMPLOYER AND PETITIONER and INTER-
NATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS , CHAUFFEURS , WAREHOUSE-
MEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA , LOCAL No. 556 , AFL, UNION
In the Matter of BUR-BEE COMPANY-PASCO, INC., AND BUR-BEE COM-
PANY-WALLA WALLA, INC., EMPLOYER and INTERNATIONAL BROTH-
ERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS , CHAUFFEURS , WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF
AMERICA, LOCAL No. 556 , AFL, PETITIONER
Cases Nos.19-RM-4, 19-ISM-43 , and 19-RC-411.
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION
AND
ORDER
May 31, 1950
On March 30 , 1950, the Board issued a Decision , Direction of
Election and Order in the above -entitled proceeding , in which, inter
alia, it permitted withdrawal of the petition for representation in
Case No. 19-RM-43 and, on April 5, 1950, a correction thereto. There-
after, on April 7, 1950, the Regional Director ( Nineteenth Region)
advised the Board that counsel for International Brotherhood of
Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Local
No. 556, AFL , had filed a disclaimer of representation in Case No.
19-RM-42. On April 10, 1950, this Union filed with the Board a
motion to withdraw its petition in Case No . 19-RC-411 . On April 12,
1950, the Board granted the Union 's request to withdraw its petition
in Case No. 19-RC-411 and issued a notice to show cause why the
Employer's petition in Case No . 19-RM-42 should not be dismissed
on the basis of the Union's disclaimer of interest . Thereafter, on
April 21, 1950, the Employer filed with the Board an answer to the
rule to show cause, in which it objected to the entry of the Order
permitting the withdrawal of the petition in Case No. 19-RC-411, and
moved that an election be held in the unit found appropriate in the
aforesaid Decision . In support of its objections and motion , the Em-
188 NLRB 1529.
90 NLRB No. 2.
9
10 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ployer alleged that the Union was continuing to harass and interfere
with the Employer's employees and business, was maintaining the
Employer on its "unfair list," was conducting boycotts against the
Employer's business, and was continuing its.efforts to organize the
employees of the Employer.
We find insufficient merit in the Employer's objections. The Em-
ployer has not alleged in its answer that the Union in fact continues
to claim majority representative status or that it has sought recogni-
tion after filing its disclaimer. By virtue of its disclaimer, the Union
has abandoned its claim to represent the employees of the Employer,
,and has relieved the Employer of any obligation to recognize it as the
representative of such employees.2 As there is no allegation of a pres-
ent reassertion by the Union of its claim to majority status, we must
regard the alleged conduct of the Union only as an attempt to organize
the employees of the Employer and thereby seek to regain its former
asserted status as majority representative. As we have stated in an-
,other and analogous case, there is nothing inconsistent between a valid
,disclaimer of majority status and continued organizational activity.3
Accordingly, the Employer's objections are hereby overruled and its
motion is denied. We shall therefor dismiss the petition in Case
No. 19-RM-42.
ORDER
IT Is HEREBY ORDERED that the petition in Case No. 19-RM-42 be,
::and it hereby is, dismissed.
MEMBERS HoUSTOx and MURDOCK took no part in the consideration
of the above Supplemental Decision and Order.
2 Ny-Lint Tool & Manufacturing Co., 77 NLRB 642.
8 John F . Hubach and C. R. Parkinson d/b/a Hubach and Parkinson Motors, et al., 88
NLRB 1202 . Cf. Coca- Cola Bottling Co. of Walla Walla, Washington , 80 NLRB 1063.
Member Reynolds disagrees with the holding in this case for the reasons stated in his
dissenting opinion in the Parkinson case, but considers himself bound by the majority
.opinion there.