C & C Packing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 29, 1967

163 N.L.R.B. 669 (N.L.R.B. 1967)

C & C PACKING CO.
The Foundation and Sales Corporation are
engaged in a multistate enterprise of considerable
magnitude. In 1965, the Foundation had income of
$2,200,000 and expenses of $2,800,000. During that
year, it made purchases in excess of $50,000 of
materials which were shipped into the State of
California from sources outside that State. It
expected to receive income in excess of $500,000 in
both 1966 and 1967 from its New Jersey and
Maryland projects. The Foundation remits to the
Sales Corporation sufficient funds to meet the
latter's expenses. During the first 8 months of 1966,
money so remitted amounted to approximately
$143,000. The projected total number of housing
units for the existing "Leisure World" communities
is 55,000, valued at more than $1 billion.
The Foundation and the Sales Corporation are
unquestionably engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the Act. Together they constitute a
multistate enterprise of very substantial scope. They
are not representative of purely localized residential
housing ownership and management. Although we
accept the separate employer status of Rossmoor
Corporation and the Foundation, their operations are
nevertheless closely intertwined and there is
considerable holding out to the public that they are a
single enterprise. A strike of Foundation or Sales
Corporation employees is likely to have an impact
upon commerce considerably greater than that
exerted upon commerce by a labor dispute affecting
a purely local residential housing project. Under
these circumstances, we find that it will effectuate
the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.'
2. The labor organization involved claims to
represent certain employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists
concerning representation of employees of the
Employer within the meaning of Section 9(c)(1) and
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Petitioner seeks to represent a unit of all
salesmen and sales counselors at the Employer's
office in Cranbury, New Jersey, excluding office
clerical employees, hostesses, guards, professional
employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
The Employer takes no position on the unit question.
There is no history of collective bargaining at the
Cranbury site. The sales personnel are paid on a
commission basis and are under the supervision of a
sales manager . They meet and correspond with
prospective residents and endeavor to sell them
shares of stock in the mutual housing corporations.
In view of these facts and the Employer's failure to
object to the unit proposed by the Petitioner, we find
that the following employees constitute a unit
appropriate for collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.
All salesmen and sales counselors of the Employer
employed at its Cranbury, New Jersey, office,
excluding office clerical employees, hostesses,
669
guards, professional employees , and supervisors as
defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election 2 omitted from
publication].'
i Cf Trade Winds Motor Hotel & Restaurant , 140 NLRB 567
2 An election eligibility list, containing the names and
addresses of all the eligible voters, must be filed by the employer
with the Regional Director for Region 22 within 7 days after the
date of this Decision and Direction of Election The Regional
Director shall make the list available to all parties to the election
No extension of time to file this list shall be granted by the
Regional Director except in extraordinary circumstances Failure
to comply with this requirement shall be grounds for setting aside
the election whenever proper objections are filed Excelsior
Underwear Inc , 156 NLRB 1236 .
C & C Packing Company and Amalgamated
Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of
North America , Local No. 448 , AFL-CIO.
Case 28-CA-1370.
March 29,1967
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS BROWN
AND JENKINS
On December 8, 1966, Trial Examiner Eugene K.
Kennedy issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding, finding that Respondent had engaged in
and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices
and recommending that it cease and desist
therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set
forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision.
Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial
Examiner's Decision and a supporting brief. The
General Counsel filed an answer to the
Respondent's exceptions and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no
prejudical error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and answer
thereto, the supporting briefs, and the entire record
in this case, and hereby adopts the findings,
conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial
Examiner.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby adopts as its Order the
163 NLRB No. 90
670 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, as
modified below , and orders that the Respondent, C
& C Packing Company, Phoenix, Arizona, its
officers , agents, successors , and assigns , shall take
the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's
Recommended Order , as herein modified.
Insert the following as the last paragraph in the
notice attached to the Trial Examiner 's Decision:
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with , restrain , or coerce our employees
in their right to self-organization , to form, join,
or assist Amalgamated Meat Cutters and
Butcher Workmen of North America, Local
No. 448 , AFL-CIO, or any other labor
organization , to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing, and to
engage in other concerted activities for the
purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual
aid or protection, and to refrain from any and all
such activities.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
EUGENE K. KENNEDY, Trial Examiner: This matter was
tried in Phoenix, Arizona, on August 24 and 25, 1966.' It
involves a question of whether C & C Packing Company,
herein Respondent, violated Section 8(a)(5) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended, by its failure to bargain
in good faith.
Upon the entire record, my observation of the witnesses
and their demeanor, and briefs submitted by the General
Counsel and Respondent, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY AND THE
JURISDICTION OF THE BOARD
At all times material herein Respondent has maintained
its principal office and place of business in Phoenix,
Arizona, where it is engaged in the processing, sale,
distribution, and packing of meat and related meat
products. During the preceding 12-month period,
Respondent, in the course of its business operations, sold
and distributed to firms located within the State of
Arizona, goods and products valued in excess of $50,000,
of which such goods and products valued in excess of
$50,000 were shipped from said firms directly to States of
the United States other than the State of Arizona.
Respondent is now and has been at all times material
herein an employer engaged in commerce or in a business
affecting commerce within the meaning of the Act.
11. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Buicher Workmen
of North America, Local No. 448 , AFL-CIO, herein the
Union, is a labor organization within the meaning of the
Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Undisputed Events
Austin C. Allen, secretary-treasurer of the Union for 10
years, filed a petition for an election of Respondent's
employees in the unit described below on March 26, 1966,
with the National Labor Relations Board. Following this a
meeting was held at the Board offices on April 7, 1966.
Attending the meeting representing Respondent were
Attorneys Lawrence Pavilack and John Gigounas. Also
attending for the Union were Allen, the secretary-treasurer
of the Union, and International Representative Harold
Benninger. In addition, David Crockett, an officer of
Respondent corporation, was in attendance in the meeting
with Robert Deeney, a representative of the Board.
After discussing a consent election and fixing the date of
April 6, 1966, as the cutoff eligibility date for voting in an
election, ani April 27, 1966, as the date for the consent
election, Pavilack inquired whether there was any place
he could talk privately with the Union's representatives
whereupon the group, except for Deeney, repaired to the
library. Then Pavilack asked the union representatives if
they would be willing to withdraw the petition for an
election if a majority could be proved. Allen stated he
wanted to discuss the proposition with Benninger.
Actually his prime purpose was to consult with the Union's
International vice president before making a definite
commitment. Upon being apprised of this development,
Deeney requested the petition to be withdrawn apparently
to meet the demands of internal Board administrative
requirements. Allen told Pavilack he would notify Deeney
at the Board office if the Union decided to go to a card
check. On April 12, 1966, Allen called Pavilack and
informed him the petition for an NLRB election had been
withdrawn and then a meeting was arranged for April 14,
1966, with Respondent's representatives.
On April 14, 1966, Allen, Benninger, Pavilack,
Gigounas, and the Crocketts, father and son, met at
Pavilack's office at 1:30 p.m. Pavilack inquired if the
union men had their contract. Allen replied that they did
not, that it was his underbianding that the meeting had
been set up to determine whether the Union did in fact
have a majority and the Union would be willing to
commence negotiations the following week after it proved
the Union represented a majority by means of a card
check. Allen then advised Respondent and its attorneys
that he had arranged a meeting for a card check at the
office of a Federal mediator at 2 p.m. (Allen had first
unsuccessfully attempted to have the NLRB perform the
card check.) He then obtained the services of William
Halloran, a retired Federal mediator, to perform the card
check. The Crocketts decided it was not necessary for
them to attend the card check and Pavilack, Gigounas,
Allen, and Benninger went to the Federal mediator's office
in the Federal Building in Phoenix. After introductions,
Halloran inquired if there were any problems or challenges
on either side before he proceeded to check the union
authorization cards against the list of employees. He also
made it clear he did not want to get involved with
something that might be NLRB business. Both sides
assured Halloran there were no objections or challenges.
Allen handed Halloran 15 union authorization cards and
' The charge in this matter was filed on April 27, 1966, and the
complaint issued on May 26, 1966
C & C PACKING CO. 671
Pavilack gave Halloran a typewritten list of 22 employees.2
Halloran went through the cards twice checking them
against the employee list and announced the Union had
authorization cards for 15 of the employees of
Respondent's list of 22. He put the cards in an envelope,
sealed it, and signed it, and handed it to Allen. Benninger
delivered the sealed envelope with the cards to the
Board's office at Deeney's request. After this Allen and
Pavilack agreed to meet on April 19 at Pavilack's office to
commence negotiations.
On April 15, 1966, Allen received a letter from Pavilack
dated the prior day, inviting Allen to submit his contract
proposal as soon as possible to make the meeting of
April 19, 1966, more productive. Thereafter, on the
morning of April 18, 1966, Benninger and Allen in an
unsealed envelope delivered two copies of a proposed
contract to the office of Pavilack.
At 7:45 on the morning of the next day (April 19, 1966),
Allen arrived at his office and found a special delivery
letter from Pavilack. Rather than attempt to characterize
it, it will be set forth verbatim:
I have just been informed by our client, C. and C.
Packing Company that they desire to have an election
to determine whether or not the majority of the
employees want to be represented by the Union prior
to entering into any negotiations regarding the
proposed contract. Mr. M. L. Crockett, President of
C. and C. Packing Company, stated that some
employees requested him to have an election as they
felt that the majority of the employees did not want to
be represented by the Union and, therefore, he felt
that in order to be fair to all of the employees, an
election should be held.
I realize this letter may take you by surprise, but I am
just expressing my client's desires and feel that this
would probably be fair in light of the fact that some of
the employees do not want to be represented by the
Union. This would clarify any doubt any of the
employees would have in their minds as to whether or
not the majority of the employees want to be
represented by the Union.
I am in receipt of your proposed contract but I have
not opened it in light of the fact that we now desire to
have an election prior to entering into negotiations.
We feel this decision should not affect our
negotiations and entering into a contract should the
employees elect your Union . In order to satisfy all of
C. and C. Packing Company 's employees , it is felt
that an election would be in the best interests of all.
I am sure you understand our position and, therefore,
hope that we can arrange for the election at the
earliest possible date so that we can begin
negotiations on a contract, assuming that the majority
of the employees desire to be represented by the
Union. I think this would be in the best interests of all.
Our meeting set for April 19, 1966 should, therefore,
be cancelled. I will be pleased to meet with you and
Mr. Deeney at your convenience for the purpose of
amicably working out details of the election.
If you have any questions regarding this matter,
please do not hesitate to call or write.
Noteworthy in this letter is that there is no claim that the
Union's majority was questioned, that the card count was
invalid, that the employees didn't understand what they
were signing, that the signatures were forged, that the
cards were obtained by misrepresentation as to their
purpose, or that the card check was not for the purpose of
obtaining majority representation.
Gigounas called Allen about 45 minutes after Allen had
found the letter. Allen replied that he stood on the results
of the card check and requested negotiations be
commenced immediately. There was no reply to this
request, but a letter, which reiterated the Union's position
demanding recognition and commencement of
negotiations, was sent to Pavilack. Thereafter Respondent
filed a petition for an election and the Union filed unfair
labor practice charges.
B. Defenses of Respondent and an Evaluation of the
Testimony
Gigounas, Pavilack's assistant or associate, testified
that at the meeting of April 7, 1966, at the Board, no
mention was made of a card check, and that Pavilack said
"This is not to impair either parties rights to request an
election until there is actually a recognition of the Union
by valid means." Allen credibly denied there was any
reservation as to the right to hold an election and that the
method agreed upon to determine a majority was a card
check. He, an experienced union representative of 10
years, persuasively testified with respect to reserving the
rights of either party to have an election after a card check
in this context of events: "I would be out of my mind."3
This has reference to agreeing to a reservation of the right
of either party to an election after a card check.
On the occasion of the card check on April 14, 1966, at
the Federal mediator's office, Gigounas testified that
Pavilack said the purpose of the card check "was not for
the purpose of recognizing the Union but merely for the
purpose of entering into some preliminary discussions to
see what grievances there were; and, at that time, we
would thus require substantiation by reasonable means
that the Union represented a majority."
Halloran who made the card check, a neutral and
disinterested party, testified: "No such statement was
made. I am certain of that." Halloran gave the impression
of forthrightness and is credited while the version of
Gigounas is rejected.
At the meeting of April 14, 1966, in the office of
Pavilack, Gigounas testified the meeting for April 19,
1966, was then arranged. In his affidavit he states that the
meeting was arranged after the card check conducted by
Halloran, which was after the meeting in the office of
Pavilack.
2 The record reflects there may have been one or two additional
employees eligible but even if this was so the Union's majority
would not be affected
' For additional reasons set forth below the lack of probability
inherent in his testimony when considered in the whole context of
events compel a rejection of the credibility of the testimony of
Gigounas where it conflicts with that of the witnesses of General
Counsel in matters significant to the issues here presented. A
factor also considered in assessing the credibility of Gigounas
includes an observation of his demeanor when testifying
672 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
One or two days before the start of the hearing,
Respondent called its employees in groups of five and
interrogated them with respect to the union authorization
cards. It also required them to sign statements concerning
the circumstances surrounding the signing of the cards.
The record suggests Respondent was claiming that
because some of the employees mainly spoke Spanish they
did not know what they were signing. However, at the time
of the card check, the same information was available to
Respondent. Moreover, the credited and persuasive
testimony of Benninger and Allen establishes that partially
through the use of an interpreter the employees knew full
well the meaning of the authorization cards they were
signing.
Respondent called five witnesses who were questioned
in late August 1966 just prior to the hearing in an attempt
to repudiate the authorization cards they had signed in
March 1966.
Andreas Leyba testified he was told there was going to
be an election but did not testify as to what the card would
be used for.4
Concepcion Alvarado testified at the time he signed)the
authorization card he did not remember the union
representative mentioning anything about an election.
Narcisco Nunez recalled something to the effect being
said about voting for an election but did not testify as to
any representation about the use of the card by any union
representative.
Magdaleno Sanchez testified the union representative
told him that signing the card would enable him to vote. He
did not testify this was the only reason for the
representation to him to sign the card.
David Walker testified the union representative told him
the reason he wanted the authorization card signed was to
get a union started.
It does not require more than a comment that the
evidence offered by Respondent is inadequate to impeach
the union authorization cards signed by Respondent's five
witnesses. Although the cards were obtained for the
purpose of an election, no representation was made they
were to be used solely for that purpose.'
The contention of Respondent that the card check was
invalid was based on the following.
(a) The person selected to conduct the card check was
unknown to management.
(b) The first apprisal to Respondent of the time of the
card check was at the April 14, 1966, meeting.
(c) Although it made no objection to Halloran
conducting the card check, Respondent contends the card
check was not valid because it had nothing to do with his
selection.
(d) The list of employees used by Halloran was not
prepared for the specific purpose of a card check.
Illustrative of the testimony and the reason for not
finding it credible is the following extract from the
testimony of Gigounas. The following testimony was given
with respect to his affidavit submitted to the Board:
Q. (By Mr. Slaff) And there is no question in your
mind is there, that when you drew a twelve page
affidavit in this case, that you went over it with Mr.
Pavilack before you sent it over to our office, is that
correct?
A I think we probably did discuss it.
Q. Not "we probably," tell me frankly whether you
discussed it or not?
A. I think we discussed it sure.
Q. Not "I think" sir-Now you did in fact-when
you drew a twelve-page affidavit that you swore to in
an important case, you went over it with your superior
before you sent it over to our office, did you not?
A. Oh sure we talked about it.
Q. Yes, I would think so.
A. I say, when I say we discussed it, I think we did
discuss it.
Q. Well, is there any doubt in your mind?
A. Not, I don't think-well let me-
Q. Is there any doubt in your mind that you went
over this affidavit with Mr. Pavilack before you sent it
over to our office?
A. No, there is no doubt in my mind.
Q. And Mr. Pavilack read the affidavit before you
sent it over to our office, did he not?
A. That I don't know I could not say.
Q. Well now if you went over it didn't Mr. Pavilack
read the affidavit, Mr. Gigounas?
A. If you want-
Q. Will you kindly answer my question, Mr.
Gigounas?
A. You asked if Mr. Pavilack read that affidavit
and I really don't know.
Q. And you say you do not even know whether Mr.
Pavilack, Chief Counsel in this matter, in charge of
this case, on an affidavit of twelve pages in his case
being submitted to the Board, you do not know
whether he read your affidavit, is that your
statement?
A. That is correct. We discussed these matters and
he may have seen some preliminary drafts.
Q. (By Trial Examiner) Are you talking, are you
saying that you do not know whether he read that
piece of paper?
A. That is right, the particular one that came to Mr.
Slaff.
Q. Or a paper containing substantially the same
material were you distinguishing between these two?
A. Sure, he has never-I don't know whether he
has ever read this one or not, frankly.
A. Did the drafts contain any different statements
than this?
Q. As to this particular matter that we are
discussing right now? (Referring to the statement in
the affidavit that the April 19, 1966 meeting was set
after the card check.)
A. I couldn't tell you, in all honesty, I really don't
know.
C. The Appropriate Unit
As indicated above, Allen orally and by letter of
April 19, 1966, reiterated the Union's demand for
recognition based on the Union's majority representation.
As admitted in the pleadings the appropriate unit for the
purpose of collective bargaining consists of:
All production and maintenance employees of
Respondent, excluding all other employees, office and
' In view of the fact that a petition for an election was filed by
the Union and the Respondent requested an election , it would
seem insufficient grounds to invalidate a card even though it was
represented it would only be used for an election However, on
this record , this question need not be reached
5 Shelby Manufacturing Company, 155 NLRB 464
C & C PACKING CO.
clerical employees, guards, watchmen and
supervisors, as defined in the National Labor
Relations Act. The evidence reflects the Union
represented a majority in the appropriate unit.
In conclusion it is found that Respondent exercised bad
faith in its dealing with the Union and this bad-faith
bargaining was a violation of its obligation under Section
8(a)(5) of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON
COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section III,
above, occurring in connection with the operations of
Respondent described in section I, above, have a close,
intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and
commerce among the several States and tend to lead to
labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and
the free flow of commerce.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce
and in a business affecting commerce within the meaning
of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning
of the Act.
3. All production and maintenance employees of
Respondent, excluding all other employees, office and
clerical employees, guards, watchmen and supervisors, as
defined in the National Labor Relations Act, constitute a
unit appropriate for the purpose of collective bargaining
within the meaning of the Act.
4. At all times material hereto, a majority of the
employees of Respondent in the unit described in
paragraph 3, above, designated or selected the Union as
their representative for the purpose of collective
bargaining with Respondent.
5. By refusing to recognize and bargain with the Union
as the exclusive representative of all employees in the
aforesaid unit , Respondent has engaged in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and 8(a)(5)
of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
conclusions of law, it is recommended that Respondent, its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing, upon request, to bargain collectively with
the Union as the exclusive representative of all employees
in the following appropriate unit:
All production and maintenance employees of
Respondent, excluding all other employees, office and
clerical employees, guards, watchmen and
supervisors, as defined in the National Labor
Relations Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the
purpose of collective bargaining within the meaning of
the Act.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with,
restraining, or coercing its employees in their right to self-
organization, to form, join, or assist any labor organization,
to bargain collectively through representatives of their
own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities
for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid
or protection, or to refrain from any and all such activities.
673
2. Take the following affirmative action which is
necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Upon request, bargain collectively with the Union as
the exclusive bargaining agent in the unit described herein
with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment,
and other conditions of employment, and, if an
understanding is reached, embody same in a signed
agreement.
(b) Post at its plant in Phoenix, Arizona, copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix."s Copies of said
notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for
Region 28, shall, after being signed by a representative of
Respondent, be posted by it immediately upon reciept
thereof and be maintained by it for a period of 60
consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places,
including all places where notices to employees are
customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by
Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(c) Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 20
days from the date of this Decision, what steps
Respondent has taken to comply herewith.'
8 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the
Board , the words " a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for
the words "the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the
notice . In the further event that the Board 's Order is enforced by
a decree of a United States Court of Appeals , the words "a Decree
of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order" shall
be substituted for the words "a Decision and Order "
7 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the
Board, this provision shall be modified to read- "Notify said
Regional Director, in writing , within 10 days from the date of this
Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommendations of a Trial Examiner
of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to
effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that.
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain with the Union as
the exclusive bargaining representative of our
employees in the appropriate unit described below
with respect to wages, hours of employment, and
other terms and conditions of employment.
WE WILL bargain, upon request, with the Union as
the exclusive bargaining representative of all
employees in the bargaining unit described below
with respect to wages, hours of employment, and
other terms and conditions of employment, and, if an
understanding is reached, embody such
understanding in a signed agreement. The bargaining
unit is:
All production and maintenance employees of
Respondent, excluding all other employees,
office and clerical employees, guards, watchmen
and supervisors, as defined in the National Labor
Relations Act, constitute a unit appropriate for
674 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the purpose of collective bargaining within the
meaning of the Act.
C& C PACKING COMPANY
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative ) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
from the date of posting, and must not be altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material.
If employees have any question concerning this notice
or compliance with its provisions, they may communicate
directly with the Board's Regional Office, Federal
Building and United States Courthouse, 500 Gold Avenue,
S.W., Albuquerque, New Mexico 87101, Telephone
247-0311.
Local 14, International Association of Bridge,
Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers,
AFL-CIO and United Buckingham Freight
Lines, Inc. and Local 690, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America.
Case 19-CD-114.
March 29,1967
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF
DISPUTE
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS
BROWN AND JENKINS
This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, following
a charge filed on June 16, 1966, by United
Buckingham Freight Lines, Inc., herein called the
Employer. The charge alleged that Local 14,
International Association of Bridge, Structural and
Ornamental Iron Workers, AFL-CIO, herein called
the Iron Workers, violated Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the
Act. On July 6, 1966, the Regional Director for
Region 19 issued a notice of hearing. A hearing was
held in Spokane, Washington, on July 20 and
October 19, 1966, before Hearing Officer Ralph
Wilmot. The Employer, the Iron Workers, and
' 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.
Local 690, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America, herein called Teamsters, participated in
the hearing and were afforded full opportunity to be
heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and
to adduce evidence bearing on the issues. The
rulings of the Hearing Officer are free from
prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Briefs
were filed by the Employer and the Iron Workers
and have been duly considered.
Upon the entire record in the case, the National
Labor Relations Board' makes the following
findings:
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
The Employer, a Washington corporation, is a
motor carrier licensed under the Interstate
Commerce Commission, engaged in the
transportation business in Washington and other
States of the United States, and also in Canada.
During the 12 months immediately preceding the
hearing, the Employer performed services in excess
of $500,000 for customers outside the State of
Washington.
We find, accordingly, that the Employer is
engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act,
and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to
assert jurisdiction herein.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The parties stipulated and we find that the Iron
Workers and Teamsters are labor organizations
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE DISPUTE
The notice of hearing specified that the dispute
only concerns the assignment of the following work:
The loading of construction equipment from
railroad cars onto the Employer's trucks at Metaline
Falls and lone, Washington, and the unloading of the
equipment at the storage yard of Seattle City Light,
a public utility corporation, at its Boundary
Hydroelectric Project, Pend Oreille County,
Washington.
A. Facts
Seattle City Light is in the process of having a
hydroelectric dam built in the State of Washington.
163 NLRB No. 91