C. H. Sprague & Son Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 27, 1947

72 N.L.R.B. 1401 (N.L.R.B. 1947)

In the Matter of C. H. SPRAGUE & SON CO., SEACONNET DIVISION
and STATE FUEL HANDLERS ' UNION and INTERNATIONAL UNION OF
OPERATING ENGINEERS (A. F. OF L.)
Case No. 1-RE-50.-Decided March, 27, 1947
Mr. William C. Waring, Jr., of Providence , R. I., for the Employer.
Mr. Hyman H. Borax, of Boston, Mass., for the Independent.
Mr. Irving D. Rosenman, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at Provi-
dence, Rhode Island, on February 21, 1947, before Robert E . Greene,
hearing officer . The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are
free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations
Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
C. H. Sprague & Son Co., a Maine corporation, mines, sells, and
distributes coal in various parts of the United States. This pro-
ceeding is concerned with the coal yard operations in Providence,
Rhode Island, of its Seaconnet Division. At this operation, the Em-
ployer is engaged in the wholesale distribution of coal. It receives
approximately 250,000 tons of coal annually at this yard from the
Commonwealth of Virginia, and in turn ships approximately 80,000
tons of this coal to points outside the State of Rhode Island.
The Employer admits and we find that it is engaged at its Sea-
connet Division operations in commerce within the meaning of the
National Labor Relations Act.
72 N. L . R. B., No. 254.
1401
1402 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED 1
State Fuel Handlers' Union, herein called the Independent, is an
unaffiliated labor organization admitting to membership employees
of the Employer.
III. TIIE ALLEGED QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
Since October 1939, the Independent has been in contractual rela-
tionship with the Employer or its subsidiary 2 concerning the eirn-
ployees at its Providence, Rhode Island, coal yard. The most recent
agreement was entered into on April 11, 1946, and provides for an
initial period ending April 15, 1947, and for its automatic renewal
for annual periods thereafter in the absence of notice to terminate
given by either party thereto at least 30 days before April 15 of any
year.
On or about October 17, 1946, a representative of the O. E. tele-
phoned the Employer and stated that it intended to "organize" the
operating engineers in the yard. Since that date, hired pickets,3
carrying placards indicating that they represented the O. E., have
been picketing at the entrance to the Employer's yard.4 In December
1946 and again in January 1947, a representative of O. E. conferred
with the Employer's counsel and requested recognition as bargaining
representative of the operating engineers in the yard. The O. E.
admitted at the latter conference that it had no proof that it repre-
sented these employees, but added that one employee in the yard had
once been a member of the O. E. and that it was the O. E.'s position
that once an employee is a member of its organization he is always
a member.
On January 27, 1947, the Employer filed its petition herein. In its
petition, the Employer averred that it was confronted with conflicting
claims of the Independent and the O. E., and requested an investiga-
tion concerning representatives.' However, the record shows that
3 International Union of Operating Engineers (A F. of L ), herein called the 0 E , refused
to accept registered mail service of the notice of hearing and, although served by having
a copy thereof left at its place of business , failed to appear at the hearing The record
also shows that several days earlier , when invited by a Board agent to a prehearing con-
ference of the parties to this proceeding, the 0 E indicated that it was not interested.
2 The original 1939 contract was between the Independent and the Seaconnet Coal
Company. This latter company on December 31, 1941, transferred its assets and busi-
ness, subject to its liabilities, to its parent corporation, the Employer herein.
3These pickets are neither employees nor former employees of the Employer.
4 According to the Employer, the O. E has also been picketing customers of the Employer.
5 The pertinent portions of the Board Rules and Regulations-Series 4, governing a peti-
tion filed by an Employer read as follows
SECTION 203.47 (b)
Such petition, when filed by an Employer, shall contain the following
(3) a brief statement setting forth that a question or controversy affecting com-
merce has arisen concerning the representation of employees of the Petitioner in that
C. H. SPRAGUE & SON CO. 1403
the O. E. has not appeared at the hearing, although apprised thereof,
and has, in fact, indicated a lack of interest in this proceeding, thereby
defaulting on its purported claim. And insofar as the Independent
is concerned, the record establishes that there is clearly no issue between
it and the Employer. Indeed, as noted above, the Independent has
been the uninterrupted bargaining representative of the employees
involved herein since 1939, and presently has a contract with the
Employer covering these employees. Accordingly, in view of the
absence of a-meritorious claim by the O. E., and in view of the accord
between the Employer and the Independent, we find that no question
concerning representation exists, and we shall dismiss the petition.
ORDER
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the
purposes of collective bargaining,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for investigation and certifi-
cation of representatives filed by C. H. Sprague & Son Co., Seaconnet
Division, Providence, Rhode Island, be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
two or more persons or labor organizations have presented to the Petitioner conflicting
claims that each represents a majority of the employees in the unit or units claimed
to be appropriate.
SECTION 203.49.
* * * the Regional Director shall not institute an investigation on a petition
filed by an Employer unless it appears to the Regional Director that two or more
persons or labor organizations have presented to the Employer conflicting claims that
each represents a majority of the employees in the bargaining unit or units claimed
to be appropriate.