Curtis Brothers, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 20, 1955

114 N.L.R.B. 116 (N.L.R.B. 1955)

116 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Curtis Brothers, Inc., Petitioner and Drivers , Chauffeurs and
Helpers Local 639, A. F. L. Case No. 5-RM-281. September 20,
1955
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before William C. Humphrey,
Sr., 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 this case , the Board finds :
1. The Employer contends , and the Petitioner denies, that the Em-
ployer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act accord-
ing to the Board's present jurisdictional standards.2
The Employer is a Delaware corporation with its place of business
in the District of Columbia . It is engaged in the cleaning of rugs,
and in the sale, moving, and storage of furniture.
Because the Board has plenary jurisdiction over enterprises located
in the District of Columbia , we find that the Employer is engaged in
commerce within the meaning of the Act and that it will effectuate
the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction over the Employer's
operations.'
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. The Union seeks dismissal of the petition on the ground that
no question affecting commerce exists concerning the representation
of employees of the Employer.
On September 30, 1953, following an election directed by the Board
in Curtis Brothers , Incorporated , supra, the Regional Director certi-
fied the Petitioner as the exclusive collective -bargaining representa-
tive of the Employer 's drivers , helpers, warehousemen , and furniture
finishers, excluding salesmen, office clerical employees, guards, and
supervisors as defined in the Act . Thereafter , the parties attempted
to agree on the terms of a contract covering the employees in the appro-
priate unit but failed to do so, in particular with respect to a union-
shop provision . About February 24 or 25, 1954, the Union author-
ized a strike and picketing began at the Employer's plant. The
pickets carried signs stating : "Curtis Brothers , Inc., On - Strike,
Drivers, Chauffeurs and Helpers Local 639, AFL ." On February 1,
1955, the Employer filed the instant petition, covering the same unit
as that described above. On or about February 16, the Union's record-
I The name of the Employer appears herein as amended at the hearing.
2 On August 27, 1953 , the Board issued its Decision and Direction of Election in Curtis
Brothers , 1ncorpoiated, Case No 5-RC-1 325 (not reported in printed volumes of Board
Decisions and Orders), asserting jurisdiction over the Employer
9 M S Ginn & Company, 114 NLRB 112
114 NLRB No. 27.
CURTIS BROTHERS, INC. 117
ing secretary wrote a letter to the Board's Regional Director, stating
in substance that the Union was abandoning all claims to recognition
as the majority bargaining representative of the employees in the unit
and expressly disclaiming the right to be such representative. The
letter further stated that "this disclaimer is made in good faith, and
we hope is clear and unequivocal." On February 17, picketing was
discontinued, but it was resumed on the following day. The pickets
now carried signs stating : "Curtis Brothers, Inc., Employs Non-
Union Drivers, Helpers, Warehousemen, Et Cetera," "Unfair to
Teamsters Local Union 639, AFL," and "Local Union 639, Teamsters
(AFL) wants employees of Curtis Brothers, Inc., to join them to
gain union wages, hours and working conditions."
In support of its contention that no question concerning repre-
sentation exists, the Union in effect points to its disclaimer of interest
in representation, and asserts that it is presently engaged only in
an attempt to organize the employees concerned herein and thus regain
its former status as their majority representative. The Employer,
asserts that the Union's current picketing activities are inconsistent
with, and thus vitiate, the efficacy of its disclaimer of interest.
A disclaimer of interest in representation must be clear and un-
equivocal. When a union engages in conduct inconsistent with its
express disclaimer, the Board holds such disclaimer to be equivocal
and therefore ineffective to remove the question concerning represen-
tation in an employer petition.'
We believe that the Union's current picketing activities cannot be
reconciled with its disclaimer of interest in representing the employees
in question. In the light of all the material facts of this case, including
the certification of the Petitibner, the circumstances preceding` the
strike, the nature of the first signs carried by the pickets, the brief dis-
continuance of picketing, and its early resumption, we are convinced
that the current picketing is not for the sole purpose of getting em-
ployees to join the Union, as the more recent picket signs indicate, bait
is tantamount to a present demand that the Employer enter into a
contract with the Union without regard to the question of its majority
status among the employees concerned.5 Accordingly, we find that a
question affecting commerce exists concerning the representation of
employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1)
and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4 See, e . g, McAllister Transfer, Inc., 105 NLRB 751, and Kimmel Shoe Company,
97 NLRB 127
, Cf. Swee-T-Shtrt8, Inc, 111 NLRB 377; Francis Plating Co ., 109 NLRB 35; and
Petrie's, An Operating Division of Red Robin Stores Inc., 108 NLRB 1318. Although
Member Peteison dissented in the last case, he deems himself bound by the decision of
the majority therein.
Contrary to the Union , we do not regard as controlling herein the Hubach and Parkinson
Motors case , 88 NLRB 1202 , where the Board gave effect to a union disclaimer and found
no question concerning representation to exist. There, unlike the instant case , substan-
tially all the strikers had been replaced during the strike and before the Union 's disclaimer.
11.8 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
4. The following employees of the Employer constitute a unit ap-
propriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the mean-
ing of Section 9 (b) of the Act: All drivers, helpers, warehousemen,
and furniture finishers working at and out of the Employer's plant
at Washington, D. C., excluding salesmen, office clerical employees,
guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
Bendix Aviation Corporation , Pioneer-Central Division and Dis-
trict Lodge No. 102, International Association of Machinists,
A. F. of L., Petitioner
Bendix Aviation Corporation , Pioneer-Central Division and Inter-
national Association of Tool Craftsmen , Local No. 1, NIUC,
Petitioner. Cases Not. 18-RC-2473 and 18-RC-2497. Septem-
ber 20,1955
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before
Hjalmar Storlie, 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 these cases, 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 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.
4. The IAM has separately represented the employees in the Em-
ployer's toolroom department No. 1980. It now seeks to add to this
existing unit the employees of the model making experimental de-
partment No. 2000. The NIUC requests an election limited to the
toolroom employees.2 The IAM and the Employer contend the Board
1 The IAM, Petitioner in Case No. 18-RC-2473, declined to stipulate that the NIUC,
Petitioner in Case No. 18-RC-2497, is a labor organization. Upon the record in this
case, and the Board's recent determinations in J. I. Case Company, 112 NLRB 796;
International Harvester Company. Farmall Works, 111 NLRB 606 ; and Friden Calculating
Machine Co., Inc., et al., 110 NLRB 1618, we find the International Association of Tool
Craftsmen , Local No. 1, NIUC, is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act.
2 In its petition the NIUC requested severance of a craft unit of tool- and die-makers.
At the hearing, however, the NIUC amended its petition to request all nonsalaried em-
ployees in the Employer 's toolroom department . Accordingly , we deem the unit sought
by the NIUC to be a departmental one, essentially coextensive with the unit that has been
:represented by the IAM.
114 NLRB No. 28.