Carnation Co.Download PDFNational Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsAug 9, 195090 N.L.R.B. 1808 (N.L.R.B. 1950) Copy Citation 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. Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation