Display Sign Service, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 12, 1969

180 N.L.R.B. 49 (N.L.R.B. 1969)

DISPLAY SIGN SERVICE INC. 49
Display Sign Service , Inc.' and Brotherhood of
Painters , Decorators and Paperhangers of
America, AFL-CIO, Local 494 , Petitioner and
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers,
Local Union No. 288, Petitioner. Cases
18-RC-7998 and l8-RC-7999
December 12, 1969
DECISION , ORDER , AND DIRECTION OF
ELECTION
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND BROWN
Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section
9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, a consolidated hearing was held at
Waterloo, Iowa, before Harold E. Jahn, 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.
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, the Regional Director for
Region 18 transferred these cases to the Board for
decision. No briefs have been filed by any of the
parties.
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 these cases to a
three-member panel
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 employees of the Employer.
3. The Intervenor contends that the instant
petitions are barred by the Employer's voluntary
recognition of the Intervenor as bargaining agent on
or about June 20, 1969.
The record indicates that the Intervenor's business
agent appeared in the office of the Employer's
president and requested recognition based on a
majority of signed authorization cards. These cards
were offered to the Employer for his examination.
The offer was declined, the Employer stating that he
accepted the Intervenor's statement that the cards
were signed by a majority of the employees. On or
about June 20, 1969, the Employer signed a
recognition agreement with the Intervenor. At the
The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing
'At the hearing, Over-The-Road and City Cartage Drivers, Helpers and
Dock Workers, and Construction Drivers and Helpers and Allied
Employees, Local 844, affiliated with International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America,
Independent (herein called intervenor) was permitted to intervene on the
basis of its showing of interest
time the recognition agreement was signed, no other
labor organization was actively engaged in
organizing the employees in the unit. There had
been only one bargaining session prior to the filing
of the instant petitions on July 23, 1969, and no
collective-bargaining contract had been reached or
signed to that date.
We find that this recognition agreement is not a
bar to the rival petitions. It is now well settled that
informal recognition granted a union will not
constitute a bar to a petition by a rival labor
organization where it does not "affirmatively appear
. .. that the Employer extended recognition to the
Intervenor in good faith on the basis of a previously
demonstrated showing of najority and at a time
when only that union was actively engaged in
organizing the unit employees."' No reason appears
why a different result is justified here. As it does not
affirmatively appear from this record that the
Intervenor had demonstrated its majority prior to
the granting of recognition, such recognition cannot
bar the petitions at this time.4 Accordingly, we find
that the petitions herein were timely filed, and that a
question affecting commerce exists concerning the
representation of certain employees of the Employer
within the meaning of Sections 9(c)(1) and 2(6) and
(7) of the Act.
4. The Employer's operation is located at a single
location in Waterloo, Iowa. In Case 18-RC-7998,
the Petitioner, Brotherhood of Painters, Decorators
and Paperhangers of America (herein called
Painters), seeks to represent a separate unit of sign
painters and sign letterers while the IBEW,
Petitioner in Case 18-RC-7999, seeks to represent a
separate unit of production and maintenance
e nployees consisting of fabricators, erectors, and
service personnel but excluding the sign painters and
letterers. The Employer and the Intervenor take the
position that only a single overall unit is
appropriate. All proposed units provide for the usual
exclusions of office clerical employees, guards,
professional employees, and supervisors as defined
in the Act. The Intervenor and the IBEW wish to
appear on the ballot in any election directed; the
Painters do not wish to participate in an election if
a unit different from the proposed unit is found
appropriate.
The Employer is engaged in the manufacture,
installation, and painting of electrical and
nonelectrical advertising signs. The business is a
single integrated operation beginning with the
manufacture of advertising signs from raw materials
to the installation and maintenance of the signs.
Employees are assigned specific job functions and
normally work exclusively at that particular
speciality. Most employees are "cross-trained,"
however, and it is not unusual for employees to
interchange in most aspects of the operation, except
'Sound Contractors Association , 162 NLRB 364, 365 ( Member Fanning
concurring in the result)
Josephine Furniture Company, Inc, 172 NLRB No 22
180 NLRB NO. 6
50 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
for the more skilled function of sign lettering. At the
time of the hearing the Employer had only one
employee engaged in sign lettering . He is one of the
Employer's highest paid personnel and the only
employee who does not normally perform any other
job function. On the rare occasions when the sign
letterer was idle, he performed routine maintenance
chores in the shop; he has never done sign erection
or maintenance. All employees are under the
supervision of a single supervisor, are hourly paid on
a similar wage scale, and receive the same fringe
benefits. In our opinion it is clear from the
foregoing that all plant employees share a close
community of interest and are so functionally
integrated as to preclude the representation of the
sign painting and lettering employees in a unit apart
from the fabricators, erectors, and service
employees. We shall therefore dismiss the petition in
Case 18-RC-7558.
Questions were raised in the hearing whether or
not part-time employees Weber and Jones should be
included in the bargaining unit. Weber is a full-time
fireman for the city of Waterloo and regularly
works approximately 25 hours per week for the
Employer. He is not eligible to participate in the
fringe benefits which full-time employees receive.
We find Weber is a regular part-time employee and
include him in the unit .' Jones is a high school
student who is more or less serving an
apprenticeship with the Company. It is indefinite as
to whether or not he will remain with the Company
following his graduation from high school . He is the
lowest paid employee in the shop and is not eligible
to participate in fringe benefits available to full-time
employees. However, since Jones regularly works
approximately 20 hours per week, we find he is a
regular part-time employee and include him in the
unit.'
'See Packers Hide Association , Inc., 145 NLRB 16, 23.
'See Delight Bakery, Inc., 145 NLRB 893, 905-906, enfd . 353 F.2d 344
(C. A. 6).
A question was also raised at the hearing whether
or not an individual named Tovar is a supervisor.
Tovar was regarded as a supervisor until
approximately 6 weeks before the hearing, when he
was replaced by an individual whose supervisory
status is undisputed. Tovar is a salaried employee
while all others are hourly paid. He participates in
all employee benefits. Tovar spends all of his time
performing duties similar to other employees in the
bargaining unit, albeit on his own initiative and with
very little supervision. At the present time he has no
apparent authority to hire, fire, or discipline
employees, or to effectively recommend such action.
In view of the foregoing, we find Tovar is not a
supervisor and shall include him in the unit.
In view of the above, we find the following
employees of the Employer constitute a unit
appropriate for collective-bargaining purposes within
the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act:
All production and maintenance employees at the
Employer's Waterloo, Iowa, operation, including
regular part-time employees, but excluding all
office clerical employees, guards, professional
employees and supervisors as defined in the Act.
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the petition in Case
18-RC-7998 be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
[Direction of Election' omitted from publication.]
'In order to assure that all eligible voters may have the opportunity to
be informed of the issues in the exercise of their statutory right to vote, all
parties to the election should have access to a list of voters and their
addresses which may be used to communicate with them . Excelsior
Underwear Inc. 156 NLRB 1236; N.L R.B v Wyman-Gordon Company,
394 U.S. 759 Accordingly , it is hereby directed that an election eligibility
list, containing the names and addresses of all the eligible voters, must be
filed by the Employer with the Regional Director for Region 18 within 7
days after the date of this Decision and Direction of Election. The
Regional Director shall make the list available to all parties to the
election. No extension of time to file this list shall be granted by the
Regional Director except in extraordinary circumstances Failure to
comply with this requirement shall be grounds for setting aside the election
whenever proper objections are filed.