Carnation Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 9, 1950

90 N.L.R.B. 1808 (N.L.R.B. 1950)

In the Matter of CARNATION CODIPANY, EMPLOYER and INTERNATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, DISTRICT LODGE No. 41, PETITIONER
Case No. 20-RC-936.-Decided August 9, 1970
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Clayton O. Rost,- 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 Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Members Houston, Reynolds, and Murdock].
Upon the entire record in this case" the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent 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 Petitioner seeks to represent a unit of boiler room employees at
the Employer's plant at Gustine, California. The Milk Products
Manufacturers' Association, herein called MPMA and the Inter-
national Union of Operating Engineers, Local No. 39, AFL, herein
called the Operating Engineers, have intervened to object to the pro-
posed unit. They assert that the employees concerned are part of an
association-wide unit which has been represented for several years by
the Operating Engineers. The Employer also opposes the unit con-
tention of the Petition for the same reason.
1 The parties stipulated that any pertinent parts of the record in Milk Products Manufac-
turers' Association, 88 NLRB 317 , could be incorporated as part of the record in this case.
2 In view of our disposition of this case , we find it unnecessary to consider the Employer's
request to reopen the hearing for the submission of new evidence, relating to the'signing
since the close of the hearing of a new contract between MPMA and the Operating Engineers,
covering the boiler room employees on an association -wide basis , and the acquiescence by
the Employer to that contract.
90 NLRB No. 230.
1808
CARNATION COMPANY 1809
The MPMA is an incorporated association which has among its ob-
jectives the negotiation, execution, and administration of collective
bargaining agreements with labor organizations. It has within its
membershp approximately 60 plants owned by 26 corporations or
cooperative associations of dairy products producers. The Employer
is a member of the MPMA and has been such since 1946.
Since 1942, the Operating Engineers and the MPMA have executed
collective bargaining contracts covering the boiler room employees
in plants of the members of the MPMA.3 The most recent of these
is a 3-year contract which expired December 31, 1949. It included
in one unit all the boiler room employees of all the members of the
MPMA. Pending the completion of negotiations for a new contract,
the MPMA and the Operating Engineers have been abiding by the
terms of the expired contract. Since it joined the MPMA in 1946,
the Employer has been included in the coverage of the MPMA con-
tracts with the Operating Engineers. The Petitioner asserts, how-
ever, that by its actions described below the Employer has effectively
withdrawn itself from the association unit so that, a unit limited to
the boiler room employees of the Employer alone is now appropriate.
During negotiations in the early part of this year, the MPMA pro-
posed to include in a new contract with the Operating Engineers a
health and welfare benefit plan. The Employer was strongly opposed
to such a plan. On March 21, 1950, a representative of the MPMA
wrote a letter to the business representative of the Petitioner stating
that the Employer had notified the MPMA that it expected to nego-
tiate a separate agreement with the Operating Engineers and that
MPMA negotiations would not bind the Employer in any way. Sub-
sequently, however, the Operating Engineers indicated to the MPMA
that it did not wish to include any health and welfare benefit clause
in the new contract. When it became apparent that the new contract
might not include such a clause, the Employer wrote to the MPMA
that "we would expect still to be a party to any agreement between
MPMA and the Engineers or Machinists, which would not require
participation in these welfare plans." At the hearing, the Employer
asserted that it still considered itself a member of the MPMA and re-
iterated its position that it would accept the MPMA contract with
the Operating Engineers if the contract did not contain a health and
welfare benefit clause.
On the basis of these facts and on the record as a whole, we find
that the Employer did not withdraw from the MPMA and did not
3 For employees other than those in the boiler room the MPMA has contracted with the
Petitioner and with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehouse-
men and Helpers of America, AFL.
903847-51-vol. 90-115
1810 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
reach a final decision to bargain separately. Rather, it is clear that
the Employer is continuing to permit the MPMA to negotiate on its
behalf, and, barring the contingency noted above, will accept the re-
sults of those negotiations. We do not require that an employer, in
order to constitute part of an association unit, agree in adva-nce to be
bound by any contract which may be negotiated by the association.
In the absence of a clear and unequivocal expression by an employer
of an intent to pursue an individual course of action with regard to
its labor relations, an existing multiple-employer bargaining history
controls the type of unit appropriate for the employees of such an
ernployer.5 We find that the boiler room employees of the Employer
are presently part of an association-wide unit and that a unit limited
to those employees alone is inappropriate .6 Accordingly, we will dis-
miss the petition, herein.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition in this matter be, and it
hereby is, dismissed.
4 Epp Furniture Company, et at., 86 NLRB 120; Air Conditioning Company of Southern
California, et al., 81 NLRB 946.
5 Bunker Hill and Sullivan Mining and Concentrating Company, et at ., 89 NLRB 243.
6 General Baking Company, 90 NLRB 588.