Coastal Tank Lines, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 17, 1967

167 N.L.R.B. 113 (N.L.R.B. 1967)

COASTAL TANK LINES, INC.
Coastal Tank Lines, Inc.' and International Union
of United Brewery , Flour , Cereal , Soft Drink and
Distillery Workers of America , AFL-CIO and its
Local Union No . 10, Petitioner and District No.
12, International Association of Machinists and
Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Cases
5-RC-5946 and 5-RC-5952
August 17, 1967
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS
FANNING, AND ZAGORIA
Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section
9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, a consolidated hearing was held before
David Kayton, Hearing Officer of the National
Labor Relations Board.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connec-
tion with these cases to a three-member panel.
The Hearing Officer's rulings made at the hearing
are free from prejudicial error and are hereby af-
firmed.
Upon the entire record in these cases, including
the briefs filed by the Employer and the Intervenor,
Petroleum, Construction, Tankline Drivers and Al-
lied Employees, Local Union 311, affiliated with
the International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of Amer-
ica, the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to
represent certain employees of the Employer.
3. No question affecting commerce exists con-
cerning the representation of employees of the Em-
ployers within the meaning of Sections 9(c)(1) and
2(6) and (7) of the Act for the following reasons.
The petition in Case 5-RC-5946, filed by Inter-
national Union of United Brewery, Flour, Cereal,
Soft Drink and Distillery Workers of America,
AFL-CIO, and its Local Union No. 10, herein
referred to as the Brewery Workers, on March 31,
1967, seeks to represent a unit of drivers, helpers,
mechanics, and servicemen at the Employer's
Pennington Avenue, Baltimore, Maryland, ter-
minal . In Case 5-RC-5952, District No. 12, Inter-
national Association of Machinists and Aerospace
Workers, AFL-CIO, herein referred to as the
IAM, seeks in its petition filed on April 6, 1967, to
represent a unit of mechanics, helpers and ser-
vicemen, excluding the drivers, at the same ter-
minal. The Employer and the Intervenor moved to
I The name of the Employer appears in the caption as corrected at the
heanng.
113
dismiss the petitions on the grounds that (1) an ex-
isting contract between them constitutes a bar, and
(2) the employees whom the Petitioners seek to
represent are presently included within a multiem-
ployer bargaining unit which is alone appropriate.
The employees involved in the instant proceeding
were for several years prior to 1966 employed by
Hess Oil and Chemical Corporation, and were
represented by the Intervenor, and its predecessor,
Teamsters Local 303, under successive collective-
bargaining agreements which covered only that
Company's Pennington Avenue terminal tank haul
operations. The most recent single-terminal agree-
ment terminated May 31, 1966. Pursuant to a sub-
sequent strike-settlement agreement between Hess
and the Teamsters, the Employer, in August 1966,
acquired Hess' Pennington Avenue tank haul
operations and extended to the terminal employees
an option to accept employment with the Employer.
Availing themselves of this option, 37 of the 51
Hess employees transferred to the Employer,
retaining the seniority they had acquired under
Hess.
The Employer, and other companies engaged in
hauling liquid products in tank trucks, are members
of a multiemployer association, known as the East-
ern Labor Advisory Association, hereinafter called
the Association. Collective bargaining on behalf of
the Association members is conducted by a
negotiating committee and executive secretary
under authorization of signed powers of attorney,
and the Association articles and bylaws bind the in-
dividual members to accept any agreements ap-
proved by a majority of the members. The Em-
ployer's only other employees in Baltimore, em-
ployed at its Waterview Avenue terminal, were
represented by the Intervenor and covered by a
multiemployer contract called the Eastern Area
Tank Haul Agreement between the Association
and various local unions, including the Intervenor,
affiliated with the Eastern Conference of Team-
sters, effective from November 1, 1963, until Oc-
tober 31, 1966. In August 1966 the Pennington
Avenue terminal employees involved herein, in-
cluding those formerly employed by Hess, those
subsequently hired from outside, and others trans-
ferred from the Waterview terminal, were, by agree-
ment between the Employer and the Intervenor,
brought within the coverage of the Eastern Area
Tank Haul Agreement. Thereafter, they received
the wage rates provided by, and processed
grievances under, that agreement.
Prior to the commencement of negotiations for a
new Eastern Area Tank Haul Agreement, all em-
ployees covered by the expiring agreement, includ-
ing the Pennington Avenue terminal employees,
167 NLRB No. 20
114 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL
were invited by their union representatives to sub-
mit proposals for contract changes. In October
1966 the Eastern Conference of Teamsters sub-
mitted to the Associations its proposals for contract
changes. Negotiations proceeded, with representa-
tives of the Employer and the Pennington Avenue
employees participating, throughout October and
into the first week of November, at which time
there is evidence that the parties arrived at agree-
ment on terms and conditions for a new Eastern
Tank Haul Agreement to be effective from
November 1, 19661 2 until November 1, 1969. The
agreement was ratified by local members, those at
Pennington Avenue participating; and after con-
tract supplements covering certain conditions at in-
dividual terminals were agreed to,3 the entire new
Eastern Area Tank Haul Agreement was formally
executed on April 27, 1967.
The facts set forth above show that, for the last
several years during which the employees here in-
volved were employed by Hess, they were
represented by the Intervenor in a single-employer
unit of all employees at the Pennington Avenue ter-
minal. No question of representation was raised as
to them before the insulated period, or during the 2-
'There was testimony, and it seems clear, that the November I, 1967,
date on the last page of the copy of this agreement in evidence is a clerical
error
3 Evidence or such supplements applicable to Pennington Avenue em-
ployees consists of (1) memo dated January 20 , 1967, entitled " Agree-
ment re Teamsters Local 311," signed by the Executive Secretary of the
Association and a representative of the Eastern Conference of Teamsters,
providing that "This will serve to confirm our understanding that the
members of the Eastern Labor Advisory have agreed that the Eastern
Area Tank Haul Agreement will provide" certain specific provisions as to
guaranteed number of hours of work a week , and the rate of pay for over-
time, and stating , All other provisions of the Eastern Area Tank Truck
LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
month period after the termination, of the last col-
lective-bargaining agreement between Hess and the
Intervenor covering that unit. Thereafter, in August
1966, when they became employees of the Em-
ployer, they were, by agreement between their col-
lective-bargaining representative and the Employer,
included in the multiemployer unit and covered by
the expiring contract for that unit. In the following
months they were included in the group bargaining
for the new contract covering the multiemployer
unit. In these circumstances, it is apparent that for
many months before the time the petitions herein
were filed requesting elections in units limited to the
employees of the Employer at this terminal, the
Employer and the Intervenor had taken definitive
action to include these employees in group bargain-
ing for the multiemployer Association unit. We
therefore find that the requested units are inappro-
priate ,4 and we shall dismiss the petitions.5
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the petitions in Cases
5-RC-5946 and 5-RC-5952 be , and they hereby
are, dismissed.
Agreement will remain as agreed upon", (2) a "maintenance addendum"
for Coastal Tank Lines in the Baltimore area dated January 23, 1967,
setting forth the wage scales for several classifications of mechanics, and
(3) an "Agreement " between Coastal Tank Lines and the Intervenor
dated March 6, 1967 , dealing with rotation of overtime and vacation pay
of drivers and shopmen
6 In view of our Decision herein, we find it unnecessary to, and there-
fore do not, decide the contract bar issue raised by the Employer and the
Intervenor
5 We therefore grant the motions of the Employer and the Intervenor to
dismiss the petitions