Dale's Super Valu, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 13, 1970

181 N.L.R.B. 698 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

698 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Dale's Super Valu, Inc. and Edwin Briggs and Bernie
Kreuzer , Petitioner . Case 30-RD-117
March 13, 1970
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND BROWN
Upon a decertification petition duly filed under
Section 9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, a hearing was held before Larry R
Brennan, Hearing Officer. Following the hearing
and pursuant to Section 102.67 of the National
Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations and
Statements of Procedure, Series 8, as amended, and
by direction of the Regional Director for Region 30,
this case was transferred to the National Labor
Relations Board for decision. Briefs were thereafter
filed by the Employer and by Petitioner; the
Intervenor' did not file a brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a
three-member panel
The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's
rulings made at the hearing and finds that they are
free from prejudicial error. They are hereby
affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board
finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the Act, and it will effectuate the
purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
2. The Petitioners, employees of the Employer,
assert that the Union, which is the currently
recognized bargaining representative of the
employees herein, is no longer a representative as
defined in Section 9(a) of the Act. The Intervenor
contends that the recognition granted to it by the
Employer on March 12, 1969, is a bar to the
election sought by the petition in this proceeding.
The record shows that on March 12, 1969, the
Intervenor presented authorization cards2 to the
Employer which bore the signatures of a majority of
the employees sought in the unit and requested
recognition. After examining the cards, recognizing
the signatures and believing that the Intervenor
represented a majority of its employees the
employer signed a recognition agreement.'
'Retail Clerks Union Local No 949, herein called the Intervenor
'The cards authorized the union "to use the card as proof that
[employees] want [the union ] to represent [them] in negotiations for a
labor agreement to obtain recognition by [their] employer as bargaining
agent, without there first being an NLRB election employees favor the
making of an all union [union shop ] agreement that will require all
employees to join and remain members of the Union in order to keep their
lobe „
'On the same date the parties agreed to request the State of Wisconsin
to hold a referendum to determine the desire of the employees on the
On April 21, 1969, the instant proceeding was
inaugurated by a petition filed on behalf of all the
unit employees. The Intervenor contends that the
recognition agreement is a bar to the petition. The
Employer and Petitioners contend that the
recognition agreement is invalid and that the
principles which protect such an agreement,
established in Keller Plastics Eastern, Inc ,° must, in
order to be applicable, be based on a bargaining
relationship rightfully established by valid
recognition of a union representing a majority of the
employees. We agree with the Intervenor's
contention that the recognition contract here is a
bar.
In Keller Plastics, supra, an unfair labor practice
case, the issue was whether a bargaining
relationship, once it is established by recognition of
a union representing a majority of the employees,
can be disrupted by the union's subsequent loss of
majority status prior to the execution of a contract.
In the present case, the issue raised relates to the
propriety of the Employer's original recognition of
the Intervenor. We note, however, that in this case
the Intervenor made a clear and positive
demonstration of the possession of majority status
to the Employer when it made the request for
recognition. The Employer satisfied itself by
examining employee signatures on the Intervenor's
cards, which bore on their face a clear and
unequivocal designation of the Intervenor as
bargaining representative and which reflected that
the Intervenor had been designated by an employee
majority, and on this basis signed the recognition
agreement. It is apparent, and we find, that the
Employer extended recognition to the Intervenor in
good faith on the basis of a previously demonstrated
showing of majority at a time when only the
Intervenor was engaged in organizing its employees.'
The Petitioners and Employer nevertheless
contend that the employees were misled, and did not
understand the purpose for which the cards were
sought, believing that the cards were to obtain a
representation election. The evidence in this respect
is unclear and conflicting. We do not need, however,
to resolve this evidentiary conflict, for in a long line
of precedents the Board has stated that its general
practice in representation cases is to presume the
regularity and legality of an agreement entered into
by an employer with a union representing its
employees and to refuse to admit evidence on the
question of whether or not a majority of employees
had freely designated the union as their bargaining
representative.6 The Board normally refuses to
receive evidence in representation cases that
question of an "all Union agreement " A notice that such election would
be held was later posted on the premises, but the election was not held
'157 NLRB 583
'See Josephine Furniture Company, Inc, 172 NLRB No 22, Sound
Contractors Association, 162 NLRB 364
'United States Rubber Co , 62 NLRB 796, fn I
181 NLRB No. 98
DALE'S SUPER VALU, INC. 699
signatures on cards were unlawfully obtained or
were otherwise invalid or fraudulent.' Such issues
may be litigated, however, upon appropriate charges
and a complaint in an unfair labor practice
proceeding.
In accorance with our long established policy in
representation cases, we presume, therefore, at least
as far as the question of a bar to an election is
concerned that the signatures were lawfully
obtained, and we refuse to evaluate evidence on the
question whether at the time the contract was
executed a majority of the employees covered by
such contract had lawfully designated the Intervenor
as their bargaining representative
ORDER
'Radio Corporation of America, 89 NLRB 699, In 5, White River
Lumber Company, 88 NLRB 158, fn 3; Clarostat Manufacturing Co.
Inc , 88 NLRB 723, fn 2
It is hereby ordered that the petition filed herein
be, and it hereby is, dismissed.