C. G. Willis, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 21, 1958

119 N.L.R.B. 1677 (N.L.R.B. 1958)

C. G. WILLIS, INC. 1677
C. G. Willis, Inc. and Local 333, United Marine Division, Na-
tional Maritime Union, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 4-RC-
3513. February 21, 1958
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Wm. Draper Lewis, Jr.,
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
Bean and Fanning].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the National Labor Relations Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain
employees of the Employer.
3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section
9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, for the following
reasons:
The Intervenor, Seafarers International Union, Atlantic and Gulf
District, AFL-CIO, contends that its 2-year contract with the
Employer, executed January 1, 1957, is a bar to the petition filed on
October 17, 1957. The Petitioner contends that the contract is not
a bar.'
Pursuant to a consent election, the Intervenor was certified by the
Board on December 11, 1956, as bargaining representative of a unit
covering "all employees aboard the Employer's vessels excluding
captains and chief engineers."
Subsequent to the certification, the Employer and the Intervenor
executed the aforementioned contract which covered captains (includ-
ing relief captains) in addition to the employees included in the certi-
fied unit. On October 21, after the instant petition was filed, the
1 At the hearing, the Petitioner contended , inter alia, that the contract is not a bar
because it contains an illegal union-security provision in that ( a) it does not grant old
employees 30 days in which to join the Intervenor , and (b ) it provides for loss of good
standing in the Intervenor for violation of its constitution and bylaws . The Petitioner
does not renew this contention in its brief . In any event , as the record shows that all
old employees who were not members of the Intervenor on the effective date of the contract
were in fact 'given 30 days in which to join the Intervenor , we find contention (a) with-
out merit . A. Sandler Co., 110 NLRB 738. Nor do we find any merit in ( b). Humboldt
Lumber Handlers , Inc., 108 NLRB 393. The Petitioner also contended at the hearing
that the contract was not a bar because it provided for contributions by the Employer to
an illegal health and ' welfare fund. This is not sufficient basis, under Board policy, for
holding the contract not to be a bar. Cf. New Orleans Laundry, Inc., 100 NLRB 966.
119 NLRB No. 214.
1678 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Employer and the Intervenor executed a supplemental agreement
which merely amended the original contract by excluding from the
unit captains, relief captains, and mates, all of whom had been
included in the old contract unit, and covered them under a separate
contract. The parties agree that these categories are supervisors and
we so find. The Petitioner contends that the inclusion of captains
(and relief captains) in the original contract unit removes that con-
tract, as a bar because (1) they were excluded by the Board from the
certified unit, and (2) they are admittedly supervisors.
Although the Board excluded captains from the certified unit, we
do not believe that their coverage by the contract so vitiated the.
latter that it cannot be held to be a bar. The Board's contract-bar-
rule is based upon policy considerations. It aims to stabilize an exist-
ing contractual relationship between an employer and its employees"
bargaining representative for a reasonable term. To disrupt that
relationship, it seems to us, would require something more than find--
ing that several individuals were included, who should not have been,.
in an otherwise clearly appropriate unit. The Calaveras Cement Com-
pany case (89 NLRB 378) cited by the Petitioner is clearly distin-
guishable. There, the contract asserted as a bar omitted from its cov-
erage a substantial group of employees whom the Board had previously
found to belong in the unit and thus denied them their right to repre-
sentation. Nor is our conclusion altered by the fact that the original'
contract herein included several supervisors.2 The Petitioner contends:
further, in effect, that its petition was timely filed with respect to.
the supplemental agreement of October 21. However, we do not.
regard the supplemental agreement as a new contract but as merely-
a modification of the existing contract, which did not open up that
contract to a new petition.
The Petitioner contends finally that the fact that the supplemental'
agreement removed from the contract unit the category of mates,
that had been included in the certified unit and covered them under
a separate contract (together with the captains) precludes the instant
contract, as supplemented from operating as a bar. In support of this
contention, the Petitioner cites Central Truck Lines Inc 4 There, after-
the Board had found that a single unit was appropriate, the parties
entered into two contracts, each covering part' of the employees in the.
unit. The Board held that the parties had so, departed from the certi-
fied unit that the contracts were not a bar. Here, however, the depar-
ture from the certified unit effected by the supplemental agreement
consisted solely in the exclusion of certain supervisors-mates-who
did not belong ,in the certified unit in the first instance, and had been
2 Cf. American Dyewood Company, 99 NLRB ' 78, where the Board held a contract to be
a bar although it included guards in a unit of production and maintenance employees.
S Western Electric Company, Incorporated, 94 NLRB 54.
4 98 NLRB 374.
B. B. McCORMICK & SONS 1679
included therein solely on the basis of the parties' stipulation in the
original consent election. This does not suffice to remove the contract-
as a bar.' Accordingly, we find that the contract herein is a bar to
this proceeding and we shall dismiss the petition.'
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
5 See, Sonotone Corporation, 100 NLRB 1127 , where the Board held that the exclusion,
from a plantwide contract unit of guards , who had been improperly included in the certified-
plantwide unit, did not remove the contract as a bar.
6In view of our disposition of this case, we do not find it necessary to consider the.
other reasons argued by Intervenor for dismissing the Petition.
B. B. McCormick & Sons and Teamsters , Chauffeurs & Helpers,
Local 79, International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs,,
Warehousemen & Helpers of America, Petitioner.. Case No..
12-RC-146. February 21, 1958
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION, DIRECTION, AND ORDER
Pursuant to a Decision, Order, and Direction of Elections of the.
Board dated August 19,1957,1 an election was held in the above-named
case on September 11, 1957, under the direction and supervision of
the Regional Director, for the Twelfth Region. Thereafter, a tally of
ballots was furnished the parties which showed that of approximately.
58 eligible voters, 2 cast ballots for the Petitioner, 3 cast ballots against
the Petitioner, and 42 ballots were challenged. As the challenges were,
sufficient to affect the results of the election, the Regional Director.
conducted an investigation of the challenged ballots in accord with
the Rules and Regulations of the Board, and on September 23, 1957,,
issued his report on challenged ballots, in which he recommended that
6 challenges be sustained and' 36 challenges be overruled. Thereafter,,
the Petitioner filed exceptions to the report on challenged ballots in'
which it contended that the Board should sustain 17 additional chal
lenges. - On October 16, 1957, the Regional Director issued a supple-
mental report on challenged ballots in which he recommended that.
the Petitioner's exceptions be overruled and reaffirmed his original,
recommendation. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed exceptions to the,
supplemental report.
On December 24, 1957, the Board issued an order directing hearing 2,
as to certain specified challenges. On January 24,1958, the. Employer-
filed a petition for amendment of order directing hearing in which it
requested that before proceeding to hearing the Board; direct the-
Regional Director to count all ballots which the Regional, Director-
Graver Construction Company, 118 NLRB 1050.
a Not published in printed volumes of Board Decisions and Orders.
119 NLRB No. 212.