Electralab Electronics Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 12, 1964

146 N.L.R.B. 328 (N.L.R.B. 1964)

328 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the licensor over the employees of the licensees, the Board concluded
in Frostco that the licensor and the licensees were joint employers and
that a storewide unit could be appropriate.
In contrast, S.A.G.E. does not have control over the personnel and
labor policies of its licensees that were present in the cited cases. So
far as appears from the license agreement, and other evidence, each
licensee of S.A.G.E. is free to decide its own labor policies, to conduct
its own collective-bargaining negotiations, and to make its own,
collective-bargaining contracts, free of any interference or control by
S.A.G.E.
In the absence of substantial control of labor relations by S.A.G.E.,
we find that S.A.G.E. and its licensees are not joint-employers of the
employees of the licensees and that a single storewide unit is there-
fore inappropriate. As the Petitioner does not seek to represent the
employees of licensees in separate units, we shall dismiss the petition 8
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
MEMBER BROWN took not part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Order.
s Although Member Leedom concurs in this result, he does not consider the absence of
substantial control of labor relations by S.A.G.E. as the sole or even principal considera-
tion supporting the conclusion that a single storewide unit is inappropriate. Instead he
relies on various considerations, as more fully set forth in the dissenting opinion In
Overton Markets, Inc., et at., d/b/a Overton Markets, 142 NLRB 615, and Checker Cab
Company, etc., 141 NLRB 583.
Electralab Electronics Corporation , Petitioner and International
Association of Machinists, AFL-CIO. Case No. 21-ISM-980.
March 12, 1964
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon, a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Hearing Officer Barton W.
Robertson. 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 Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Fanning and
Jenkins].
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 juris-
diction herein.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
146 NLRB No. 36.
ELECTRALAB ELECTRONICS CORPORATION 329
3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa_
tion of certain employees of the Employer within the meaning of
Section 9(c) (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, for the follow-
ing reasons:
Electralab Electronics Corporation, hereinafter called New Electra-
lab, is engaged in the manufacture of printed circuit boards at its
plant in Encinitas, California. It is the successor corporation to
Electralab Printed Electronics Corporation, Western Division, here-
inafter called Old Electralab. The assets of Old Electralab were
sold to New Electralab on or about November 1, 1962. The latter firm
continued the operation, retaining the same facilities, equipment, and
employees.'
On June 5, 1962, some 5 months earlier, the International Associa-
tion of Machinists (AFL-CIO) was certified as the exclusive bargain-
ing agent for employees of Old Electralab.2 This certification was
amended on December 31, 1962, naming New Electralab as successor
Employer.
The instant petition was filed by New Electralab on December 4,
1963 s The IAM has moved to dismiss the petition as untimely in
view of the circumstances discussed below.
The record shows that Old Electralab dealt with the IAM for
approximately 5 months following the June certification and that
on or about November 1, 1962, and for approximately 5 months there-
after, New Electralab in effect withdrew exclusive recognition from
the IAM. On January 17, 1963, an unfair labor practice charge was
filed by the IAM, in Case No. 21-CA-5145, alleging that during the
pendency of the motion to amend its certification, New Electralab
recognized another union, Employees Association of Electralab Elec-
tronics Corporation, as the bargaining representative of its employees.
The record further shows that after the issuance of a complaint
alleging violations of Section 8(a) (1), (2), and (5) of the Act, the
parties executed a settlement stipulation on April 4, 1963. By its
terms and subject to Board approval, New Electralab agreed, among
other things, to withdraw recognition from, and completely disestab-
lish, the Association, and to bargain collectively with the IAM as
the exclusive representative of its employees. On: April 19, 1963, the
Board approved the settlement stipulation and issued -its Decision
and Order based thereon. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Cir-
cuit issued a decree enforcing the Board Order on June 24, 1963.
i It appears that the vice president and general manager of Old Electralab became presi-
dent of New Electralab and continued as the individual responsible for the labor relations
policies throughout the entire period here involved.
2 Case No. 21-RC-7758.
8An RD petition was filed on August 26, 1963 ( Case No. 21-RD-67G), and was dis-
missed by the Regional Director as untimely on September 6. The dismissal was upheld
by the Board on October 30.
330 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
For" more than 7 months following the Board Order, the parties
apparently bargained. It is the Employer's position that by Old
Electralab's bargaining for 5 months in 1962 and by New Electralab's
bargaining for over 7 months in 1963, it has satisfied the requirement
of bargaining for a full certification year, and that its RM petition
was therefore not premature.
We are not so persuaded. In Mar-Jac Poultry Company, Inc.,5 an
employer's refusal to bargain during the certification year caused us
to grant to a union a period of "at least one year of actual bargaining"
from the date of the settlement agreement. Here, the Employer not
only refused to bargain with the IAM during the certification year
but also recognized another union as the bargaining agent of its em-
ployees. Furthermore, we are not satisfied on this record that either
Old or New Electralab bargained in good faith at any time prior to
April 19, 1963, when the Board approved the settlement stipulation.
Under the circumstances, we find that IAM is entitled to at least 1
year of actual bargaining from that date. The instant petition is
therefore untimely and we shall dismiss it.
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
4 Testimony taken at the hearing , held on December 19, 1963, reveals that the parties
held their first postsettlement meeting on April 29 and bargained through November, at
which time they reached an impasse in negotiations.
6136 NLRB 785.
Greenacres, Inc., d/b/a Woodland Hills Country Club and Mis-
cellaneous Warehousemen , Drivers & Helpers, Local 986,
I.B.T.C.W. & H. of A., Petitioner . Case No. 21-RC-8739. March
12, 1964
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the. National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Hearing Officer
Howard Fabrick. The Hearing Officer's rulings made at the hear-
ing are free from prejudicial error and dare hereby affirmed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel [Members Leedom, Fanning, and Brown].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds:
1. The Employer operates a private golf and country club in Wood-
land Hills, California. It furnishes recreational facilities in the form
of a golf course and a swimming pool to its members and their guests.
It also sells food and beverages to its members and guests, operating
for that purpose a restaurant, dining room, and bar. It does not,
however, maintain or operate any housing facilities.
146 NLRB No. 37.