Frank Becker Towing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 5, 1965

151 N.L.R.B. 466 (N.L.R.B. 1965)

466 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX
Computation of Gross Backpay , Interim Earnings , and Net Backpay For-
(a) William E. Pollard
Calendar quarters Gross
backpay
Interim
earnings
Net backpay
1963-3------------------------------------------------------ 1$1,188 00 0 $1,188 00.
-4 ------------------------------------------------------- 2 1, 278 92
$322.25 957 O3
1964-1------------------------------------------------------- 3 1, 229 06
1, 061.17 168 00
Total-------------------------------------------------------
2,313 00
(b) Clifton L Hubbard
1963-2------------------------------------------------------- 4 280 00
0 $280 0
Total-------------------------------------------------------
280 00
1528 hoursX $2 25=$1,188
2 568 5 hours (528 at straight time plus 27 at 1) time ) X$2 25=$1 ,278 92.
H 546% hours (472 at straight time plus 49'/2 at 1% time ) X$2 25=$1,229 06.
4 160 hoursX$1.75=$280.
Frank Becker Towing Company Detroit Marine Towing L.O.L.
Company and Local 299, International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America , Inc.,,
Petitioner. Case No. 7-RC-6210. March 5, 1965
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended, a hearing was held before Hearing
Officers Thomas R. Wilks and Brian S. Ahearn. The Hearing
Officers' rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial
error and are hereby affirmed. Thereafter, the Petitioner and
Intervenor filed briefs.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National
Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations Board has
delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Members Fanning, Brown 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
jurisdiction herein.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain
employees of the Employer.'
1 The Great Lakes Tug and Dredge Region Inland Boatmen's Union, Seafarers Inter-
national Union of North America , Gulf, Lakes and Inland Waters District , AFL-CIO,
was permitted to intervene at the hearing.
151 NLRB No. 52.
FRANK BECKER TOWING COMPANY DETROIT, ETC . 467
3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the represen-
tation 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
following reasons :
The Intervenor was certified as the representative of the unlicensed
marine personnel aboard the Employer's ships on January 15,
1962. A contract between the Intervenor and the Employer was
executed July 30, 1962, with the expiration date March 31, 1964.
On September 20, and October 8, 1963, the Intervenor filed
charges in Case No. 7-CA-4373, alleging, inter alia, that the
Employer recognized the Petitioner herein, and refused to bargain
with the Intervenor, in violation of Section 8(a) (1), (2), and (5)
of the Act. Thereafter, a settlement agreement was executed, and
approved by the Acting Regional Director on December 11, 1963,
whereby the Employer was required, inter alia, to withdraw recogni-
tion of the Petitioner and to bargain collectively with the Intervenor.
The contract between the Intervenor and the Employer expired
March 31, 1964. On April 1, 1964, the petition in the instant case
was filed. As of that date, bargaining between the Intervenor and
the Employer was halted?
At the hearing herein, the Intervenor moved to dismiss the peti-
tion on the grounds that a reasonable period of time within which
to bargain for and reach a new contract had not elapsed following
the approval of the settlement agreement. The motion was referred
to the Board.
In Poole Foundry d i Machine Co.3 the Board and the court
enunciated the doctrine that following a settlement agreement con-
taining a provision requiring bargaining, a reasonable period of
time must be afforded the parties in which to reach a contract.
The doctrine of reasonable time in order to effectuate the purposes
of a settlement agreement was applied to a representation case in
Dick Brothers, Inc.4
In this case, less than 4 months had elapsed from the date of the
settlement agreement to the date the petition was filed. We find that
under the circumstances herein the parties have not had a reasonable
time to effectuate the purposes of the settlement agreement, and
the processing of a representation petition and the direction of an
2 Subsequent to the filing of the petition , the Intervenor filed charges in Case
No. 7-CA-4702 , alleging that the Employer had engaged in stalling tactics during the
negotiation. The Regional Director dismissed the charge , finding , inter alla, that al-
though bargaining for a new contract was delayed until early March 1964, the delays
were for legitimate reasons and did not constitute a violation of Section 8(a) (5). He
further noted that the negotiations were near completion when the petition was filed.
The dismissal of the charge was sustained on appeal.
3 95 NLRB 34, enfd. 192 F. 2d 740 (C.A. 4), cert. denied 342 U.S. 954.
* 110 NLRB 451.
468 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
election at this time would only result in a frustration of the
settlement agreement. Accordingly, we shall dismiss the petition .5
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
5In view of the dismissal of the petition , we do not reach or resolve the voting
eligibility of certain employees which was in dispute.
Detroit Processing Terminal Division , Nor-Cote, Inc.' and Truck
Drivers, Warehousemen and Helpers , Local Union No. 299,
affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauf-
feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America , Ind .,2 Petitioner.
Case No. 7-RC-6508. March 8, 1965
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 Jack G.
Handler. The Hearing Officer's rulings made at the hearing are
free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Thereafter,
the Petitioner and the Intervenor filed briefs with the Regional
Director, and the Intervenor filed a brief with the Board.
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.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain
employees of the Employer.3
3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the repre-
sentation of certain employees of the Employer within the mean-
ing of Section 9(c) (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, for
the following reasons :
The Employer operates a metal treating plant at Warren, Michi-
gan, where the employees are represented by a union which is not
a party to these proceedings. In June 1964 the Employer acquired
a foundry building in Detroit, fronting on the Detroit River,
with the intention of converting it into a marine terminal and
warehousing facility. Approximately 22 men were hired in labor-
i The Employer' s name appears as amended at the hearing.
2 The Petitioner' s name appears as amended at the hearing.
8 Local 46 of the Industrial Union of Marine and Shipbuilding Workers of America,
AFL-CIO, intervened on the basis of its contractual interest in the unit.
151 NLRB No. 54.