80 N.L.R.B. 1063 (N.L.R.B. 1948)

Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of Walla Walla

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsDec 3, 1948

80 N.L.R.B. 1063 (N.L.R.B. 1948)

In the Matter of COCA-COLA BOTTLING Co. OF WALLA WALLA, WASH- INGTON, EMPLOYER AND PETITIONER and INTERNATIONAL BROTHER- HOOD OF TEAMSTERS , CHAUFFEIIRS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS, LOCAL UNION No. 900, A. F. L.,1 UNION Case No. 36-RM-9. Decided December 3, 1948 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before a hearing officer of the National Labor Relations Board. 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-man panel consisting of the undersigned Board Members.* 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 organization named below claims to represent em- ployees of the Employer. 3. A 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. The Employer, in its business of manufacturing and distributing soft-drink beverages, operates bottling plants and warehouses in the States of Washington and Oregon, including a plant at La Grande, Oregon, involved herein. For about a year before June 1, 1945, the Employer and the Union had a bargaining contract covering employees at the La Grande operations, which then consisted only of a warehouse. After the con- tract lapsed, there was no further bargaining or attempt at negotia- 1 The names of the parties appear as amended at the hearing. .Chairman Herzog and Members Reynolds and Gray. 80 N. L. R. B., No. 161. 1063 1064 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD tions until January 1948, when the Union requested the Employer to sign a contract for the La Grande employees. Another request was made in February 1948, to which the Employer replied by sug- gesting that the Union establish its position as bargaining representa- tive through a Board election. Instead, on March 3, 1948, the Union began picketing the plant as a means of inducing recognition by the Employer. On April 12, 1948, the parties to the dispute met for the last time, at the offices of the U. S. Conciliation Commissioner at Portland, Oregon, but were unable to reach an agreement as to repre- sentation of the employees at the La Grande plant. The Employer filed the instant petition immediately after the meeting. At the hearing, while picketing was still going on, the Union for the first time asserted that it no longer claimed to represent any employees of the Employer, and moved for dismissal of the petition. The motion is denied for the reasons given below. Although a question of representation may be brought to the Board's attention by an Employer's petition, it must be based upon the affirma- tive claim of a union to represent a majority of the Employer's em- ployees in an appropriate unit .2 A union may withdraw its claim to representation by its conduct alone,3 or by statements made either at the hearing 4 or after the Board has issued its Direction of Elec- tion 5 Such a withdrawal must, however, be clear and unequivocal. In the present case, we believe that the Union, by continuing its picketing of the Employer's plant, has cast substantial doubt on the validity of its disclaimer of representing the Employer's employees. A union representative testified at the hearing that picketing was being continued because the Employer had raised the wages of its La Grande employees during the period early in 1948, when the Union was seeking recognition. But during the period of attempted nego- tiation with the Employer following the wage increase, and even after the start of picketing, the Union never referred to the wage increase as a^ cause of its dissatisfaction. The union representative further testified that the Union would have withdrawn its pickets if the Employer had agreed to sign a collective bargaining agreement providing for a closed shop. In the light of the whole record, we are satisfied that the Union's picketing was due to, and remained an affirmation of, its original claim to represent the La Grande employees. We shall therefore proceed to resolve the question thus raised by directing an election. 2 Matter of Loueila Balierino , 77 N. L. It. B. 738. 8 Matter of Riggs Optical Company, Consolidated , 77 N. L. R. B. 265. 4 Matter of Bernard Klint, Grace %lint, David H. Nyberg and Emma Nyberg , co-partners, d/b/a Ny-Lint Tool & Manufacturing Co., 77 N. L. R. B. 642. 5 Matter of Federal Shipbuilding and Drydock Company, 77 N. L. R. B. 463. COCA-COLA BOTTLING CO. 1065 4. We find, as alleged in the petitions that all employees at the Employer's La Grande, Oregon, plant, excluding office employees and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. DIRECTION OF ELECTION As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the pur- poses of collective bargaining with the Employer, an election by secret ballot shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later than 30 days from the date of this Direction, under the direction and super- vision of the Regional Director for the Nineteenth Region, and subject to Sections 203.61 and 203.62 of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 5, as amended, among the employees in the unit found appropriate in paragraph numbered 4, above, who were employed during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of this Direction of Election, including employees who did not work during said pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation or temporarily laid off, but excluding those employees who have since quit or been discharged for cause and have not been rehired or reinstated prior to the date of the election, and also excluding em- ployees on strike who are not entitled to reinstatement, to determine whether or not they desire to be represented, for purposes of collective bargaining, by International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers, Local Union No. 900, A. F. L. 6In consonance with its disclaimer of interest, the Union took no position as to the appropriate unit.