Fullview Industries, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 30, 1964

149 N.L.R.B. 427 (N.L.R.B. 1964)

FULLVIEW INDUSTRIES, INC. 427
Fullview Industries , Inc. and Richard J. Matthews , Petitioner
and Sheet Metal Workers' International Association, Local
Union No. 170, AFL-CIO; Glaziers & Glassworkers, Local
Union No. 636, Brotherhood of Painters , Decorators and
Paperhangers of America , AFL-CIO; Miscellaneous Ware-
housemen , Drivers and Helpers, Local 986, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen, and
Helpers of America
Fullview Industries , Inc. and Miscellaneous Warehousemen,
Drivers and Helpers, Local 986, International Brotherhood
of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen, and Helpers of
America, Petitioner. Cases Nos. 21-RD-725 and 21-RC-9075.
October 30, 1964
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held in these consolidated cases before
Hearing Officer Max Steinfeld. 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 these cases to a three-
member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Leedom and
Brown].
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 within the meaning of Sections 9(c) (1) and 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.
Fullview Industries, Inc., the Employer herein, is engaged in the
manufacture of glass doors and other aluminum products in Glen-
dale, California, On September 1, 1961, a collective-bargaining
agreement covering the Employer's production and maintenance em-
ployees was entered into by the Employer and the Joint Intervenors.
' Sheet Metal International Worker' s Association , Local Union No. 170, AFL-CIO, and
Glaziers & Glassworkers, Local Union No 636, Brotherhood of Painters , Decorators, and
Paperhangers of America, AFL-CIO, the Joint Intervenors herein, were permitted to inter-
vene in Case No. 21-RC-9075 on the basis of their contractual interest in the employees
involved.
149 NLRB No. 41.
428 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
This contract was effective for a 3-year period, ending on Septem-
ber 1, 1964. On May 25, 1962, pursuant to a supplemental agree-
ment between the parties to the original contract and Miscellaneous
Warehousemen, Drivers and Helpers, Local 986, International Broth-
erhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen, and Helpers of
America, the Union-Petitioner herein, that Petitioner became a party
to the original contract. The supplemental agreement provided,
inter alia, that the Union-Petitioner was to represent employees iii
the classification of forklift operator, truckdriver, and a warehouse-
man, and further provided :
Said Local 986 will not claim to represent employees other than
employees in the classifications above set forth during the term
of said collective-bargaining agreement.
In late May or early June 1964, the Joint Intervenors and Union-
Petitioner, sometimes referred to herein as the Unions, met with the
Employer to discuss a grievance which had arisen under the terms
of the contract. At that meeting the Union-Petitioner stated its in-
tention to participate in joint negotiations with the Joint Intervenors
for a new contract. On June 7 representatives of the Unions met
with employees covered by the agreement to discuss forthcoming
contract negotiations. A representative of the Union-Petitioner was
present at the meeting and he indicated Union-Petitioner intended
to continue to participate in joint bargaining with the other unions.
On the following day, June 8, a decertification petition (Case No. 21-
RD-725) was filed by an individual seeking to decertify the Sheet
Metal Workers as representative of certain classifications of em-
ployees, and on June 18 the petition was amended to seek to de-
certify the Unions as representatives of all production and mainte-
nance employees of the Employer. On June 22 the Union-Petitioner
notified the Employer and the Joint Intervenors that it would no
longer participate in joint negotiations with them. On June 23 the
Employer advised the Unions of its desire to commence negotiations
on a new contract. On June 29 the Union-Petitioner filed a petition
(Case No. 21-RC-9075) seeking to represent the Employer's produc-
tion and maintenance employees.
The parties agree that the petition in Case No. 21-RD-725 raises a
question concerning representation. However, the Employer and
Joint Intervenors contend that the petition in Case No. 21-RC-9075
should be dismissed on the grounds that : (1) The Union-Petitioner
is precluded from seeking to represent employees other than forklift
operators, truckdrivers, and warehousemen during the term of the
supplemental agreement by which the Union-Petitioner agreed not
to represent such other employees for the duration of that agree-
ment; and (2) As joint bargaining between the Unions and the Ein-
FULLVIEW INDUSTRIES, INC. 429
p]oyer for a new contract had commenced, the Union-Petitioner
should be estopped from its attempt to withdraw from such joint
bargaining. We find no merit in either contention.
As to (1), the Employer and Joint Intervenors rely on the rule in
Briggs Indiana Corporation.2 We believe that the present case is
distinguishable from Briggs Indiana, and that the principle therein
established is inapplicable here. There, the Board held that where
a union agrees by contract not to represent certain categories of em-
ployees during the term of a collective-bargaining agreement, it may
not, during that period, seek their representation. The Board stated
that it would not expend its energies and public funds to confirm a
result which the union agreed it would refrain, temporarily, from
seeking to achieve. In the present case, however, although the pe-
tition was filed during the term of the agreement,3 Union-Petitioner
explicitly stated at the hearing that it did not wish to represent em-
ployees until the expiration of the 1961 contract. Indeed, the 1961
contract between the Employer and the Unions has already expired,
and there is therefore no possibility the Union-Petitioner during the
term of that agreement will represent employees it has agreed not to
represent. Hence, in processing the instant RC petition, the Board
is not expending its efforts to assist Union-Petitioner in breaching its
agreement. We find accordingly that the Briggs Indiana rule, which
the Board has recognized is a limitation upon the right of employees
to select representatives of their own choosing,4 was not intended to
cover a situation such as is involved in the present case.
As to (2), the Employer and Joint Intervenors contend that as
bargaining on a joint-representative basis had commenced at the
time Union-Petitioner initially notified the parties of its intent to
withdraw from joint bargaining, Union-Petitioner should be estopped
from seeking to represent separately the Employer's production and
maintenance employees. However, even assuming that there is some
limitation on the right of a union to withdraw from a joint-bargain-
ing relationship with other unions once negotiations for a new con-
tract have begun, we fail to find any evidence in the record to sub-
stantiate the contention that any bargaining on a joint basis between
the parties regarding a new contract had in fact occurred before
Union-Petitioner withdrew from the joint bargaining. In this con-
nection the Employer and Joint Intervenors rely on statements made
by representatives of Union-Petitioner at two meetings, one in late
May or early June 1964 and another on June 7. However, although
the record indicates that at the conclusion of the earlier meeting
z 63 NLRB 1270.
3 The petition was timely filed with respect to the Board's contract -bar rules , within the
90 to 60 day period before the expiration of the original agreement.
See The Cessna Aircraft Company, 123 NLRB 855.
430 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Union-Petitioner's representative did indicate that it would continue
to negotiate jointly with the other Unions, it is undenied that the
meeting was convened solely for the purpose of discussing a griev-
ance which had arisen under the existing agreement, and that no
joint bargaining for the new contract took place at the meeting.
Further, the June 7 meeting was between the Unions and the em-
ployees in the unit in order to ascertain the wishes of employees re-
specting the new contract. In this meeting, too, there were no ne-
gotiations between the Employer and the Unions. In view of these
facts, we find that no joint bargaining had taken place and therefore,
apart from any other consideration, that Union-Petitioner was not
estopped from filing the instant petition.'
4. The parties otherwise agree, and we find, that the following
employees of the Employer constitute a unit appropriate for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of
the Act.
All production and maintenance employees of the Employer at its
plant in Glendale, California, including shipping and receiving em-
ployees and truckdrivers, but excluding office clerical employees, pro-
fessional employees, guards, and supervisors, as defined by the Act.6
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
5 For this same reason we find Hollingsworth & Whitney Division of Scott Paper Com-
pany, 115 NLRB 15 , inapposite.
6 Since Union -Petitioner has indicated that it no longer desires to represent employees
jointly with Joint Intervenors , we shall not place Union -Petitioner on the -ballot together
with the Joint Intervenors . We shall rather give employees an opportunity to decide
whether they wish to be represented by Joint Intervenors , by Union-Petitioner, or by no
union.
Local 349, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers,
APL-C10 and Dade Sound and Controls . Case No. 12-CC-258.
November 4, 1964
DECISION AND ORDER
On August 21, 1963, Trial Examiner Ramey Donovan issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Interme-
diate Report. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions to the Inter-
mediate Report and a supporting brief.
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
149 NLRB No. 46.