Furniture Firms of Duluth

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 9, 1949

81 N.L.R.B. 1318 (N.L.R.B. 1949)

In the Matter of FURNITURE FIRMS OF DULUTH,' EMPLOYERS and
TEAMSTERS , CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN & HELPERS LOCAL UNION
No. 346, AFFILIATED WITH I. B. T. C. W. H. A., A. F. OF L., PETITIONER
Case No.18-UA -108 .Decided March 9,1949
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed,2 a hearing in this case was held at Duluth,
Minnesota, on October 19, 1948, before Erwin A. Peterson, a 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.
Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations
Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The Employers admit and we find that they are engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of the Act.
2. The Petitioner is a labor organization, affiliated with the Amer-
ican Federation of Labor, claiming to represent employees of the
Employers.
3. The question concerning authorization of a union shop :
For a period of years, the Petitioner and the Employers have nego-
tiated collective bargaining agreements covering the employees con-
i The Employers consist of the following group of furniture firms in Duluth , Minnesota
F S. Kelly Furniture Company ; Anderson Furniture Company ; French, Bassett and Scott
Company ; Beck's Furniture Company ; Joel 0 Bodin Company , Enger & Olson ; J & J
Furniture Company ; and Rudolph 's Furniture Company The members of this group,
without a formal association , have united for purposes of collective bargaining with the
Petitioner . At the meetings of the group , the members decide upon the limitation of
authority to be delegated to Gerald Howze , a labor relations consultant , and a negotiating
committee , composed of representatives of the Employer , when negotiating the terms of
a new contract with the Petitioner
2 On January 26, 1948 , the Petitioner filed its petition ; on August 9, 1948, the Regional
Director dismissed the petition , on the ground that a question concerning the appropriate
bargaining unit existed ; on August 18, 1948 , the Petitioner filed its appeal requesting a
review of the dismissal of petition ; subsequently, the Board reversed the Regional Direc-
tor's dismissal of petition and directed the Regional Director to conduct a hearing.
81 N. L. R. B., No. 209.
1318
FURNITURE FIRMS OF DULUTH 1319
cerned. Each year, representatives of the Petitioner have bargained
with an official of one of the Employers involved and a labor relations
consultant employed jointly by the several Employers. After an
agreement has been reached, it has been reduced in writing and signed
by the Petitioner, the labor relations consultant, and a representative
of each of the Employers. The current agreement , executed on
July 19, 1948, is effective until May 1, 1950, and from year to year
thereafter in the absence of 60 days' notice before any anniversary date.
As the Employers currently recognize the Petitioner, we find that
no question affecting commerce exists concerning the representation
of employees of the Employer in the unit sought by the Petitioner.
4. The appropriate unit :
The Employers contend that the appropriate units for union secu-
rity elections in this proceeding are separate employer units, whereas
the Petitioner contends that a single multi-employer unit is the only
appropriate unit. It appears that the Employers first recognized the
Petitioner about 1938, as the exclusive bargaining representative of
all the employees in a stipulated bargaining Unit .3 Although from
1938 through 1945, the Employers have signed separate identical con-
tracts with the Petitioner, such contracts have resulted from negotia-
tions conducted jointly on behalf of the Employers by one Gerald
Howze, as labor relations representative of the Employers, assisted by
a negotiating committee. Since 1946, although the manner of nego-
tiating the contracts remained the same, the Employers and the Peti-
tioner have been signatories to a single master agreement. In view
of the foregoing, we believe that by thus indicating a desire for joint
rather than individual action with respect to labor relations the
Employers have established a single bargaining unit.
Although in the Giant Food case 4 we held that the unit found ap-
propriate under Section 9 (e) (1) of the Act need not be identical with,
and may be smaller than the unit appropriate under Section 9 (a),
the Board recognized in that case that in most instances the unit
appropriate for purposes of Nection 9 (e) (1) will be co-extensive
with the unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining
under Section 9 (a). In the absence of any compelling reason for
finding the appropriate unit in a 9 (e) proceeding to be smaller or
different from the unit which we would normally find appropriate in
3 The stipulated bargaining unit at present consists of "all shipping clerks, assistant
shipping clerks, warehouse foremen, warehousemen, finishers , packers, truck drivers,
helpers, janitors, maintenance men, maintenance helpers, radio and appliance servicemen,
including all employees who come within the bargaining unit of the agreement between the
Employers and the Union, and excluding managers , salesmen, solicitors, office and clerical
help, and supervisors who come within the meaning of the Management Labor Relations
Act, of 1947 "
4 Matter of Giant Food Shopping Center, Inc, 77 N L R. B 791.
1320 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
a 9 (a) proceeding (such as that present in the Giant Food case),
we believe that the unit appropriate for purposes of collective bargain-
ing under 9 (a) is also the appropriate unit for purposes of union
security elections under Section 9 (e) (1) of the Act. Nor do we
believe, contrary to the suggestion in the minority opinion, that the
finding of such appropriate unit in this case will unduly limit the
choice of employees or that a multiple-employer unit is inconsistent
with provisions of the amended Act. An exhaustive search and study
of the legislative history of the Act, as amended, fails to reveal an
intent by Congress to limit the appropriate unit for purposes of Sec-
tion 9 (e) (1) to a single-employer unit.
Accordingly, we are of the opinion that the appropriate unit for
the purpose of a union shop authorization election herein should be
co-extensive with the established multiple-employer units
We find that all the employees of the Employers in the stipulated
bargaining unit including shipping clerks, warehousemen, finishers,
packers, truck drivers, helpers, janitors, maintenance men, mainte-
nance helpers, radio and appliance servicemen, but excluding man-
agers, salesmen, solicitors, office and clerical employees, warehouse
foremen '6 and all of any other supervisors as defined in the Act,
constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of Section 9 (e) (1)
of the Act.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Pursuant to Section 9 (e) (1) of the National Labor Relations Act,
as amended, an election by secret ballot shall be conducted as early
as possible, but not later than thirty (30) days from the date of this
Direction, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Di-
rector for the Region in which this case was heard, and subject to
Section 203.61 of National Labor Relations Board Rules and
Regulations-Series 5, as amended, among the employees of Furni-
ture Firms of Duluth, in the unit found appropriate in para-
graph numbered 4, above, who were employed during the pay-roll
period immediately preceding the date of this Direction, including
employees who did not work during said pay-roll period because they
were ill or on vacation or temporarily laid off, but excluding those
employees who have since quit or been discharged for cause and have
"See Matter of Ward Baking Company, 78 N. L R. B 781; also Matter of Rayonier,
Incorporated, Grays Harbor Division , 52 N. L R. B. 1269.
6 Although warehouse foremen are included in the stipulated unit , their status appears
questionable from the record . For this reason , we shall make no determination as to the
inclusion of warehouse foremen in the unit at this time . If they possess supervisory
powers within the meaning of the Act, they are to be excluded from the unit ; otherwise
they are to be included. See Matter of the American News Company, Inc., 77 N. L. R. B.
1936.
FURNITURE FIRMS OF DULUTH 1321
not been rehired or reinstated prior to the date of the election, and
also excluding employees on strike who are not entitled to reinstate-
ment, to determine whether or not they desire to authorize Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers Local Union No. 346, affiliated
with I. B. T. C. W. H. A., A. F. of L. to make an agreement with
Furniture Firms of Duluth, Minnesota, requiring membership in the
aforesaid labor organization as a condition of employment in such unit.
CHAIRMAN HERZOG and MEMBER HOUSTON took no part in the con-
sideration of the above Decision and Direction of Election.
MEMBER GRAY, dissenting :
I disagree with my colleagues' determination that a unit in a union
authorization election may be comprised of employees of more than a
single, independent employer.
Much more than the Wagner Act, the present statute was designed
to enable employees to obtain or retain their employment without
regard to union considerations. For, unlike the original Act, the
amended Act protects employees from union as well as employer
coercion. In furtherance of this objective, Congress has outlawed
the traditional closed-shop; and while permitting less stringent forms
of union-security agreements, Congress has imposed certain conditions
even as to them.7 Thus, under the amended Act, agreements requiring
membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment are
not valid unless, inter alia, the union in question has been certified by
the Board as having been authorized by a majority of the eligible
employees to make such an agreement."
In the Giant Food case,9 the Board held that "the unit appropriate
for a union-shop election might be smaller than that appropriate for
collective bargaining purposes [under Section 9 (a)]." The con-
siderations for restricting the unit in the Giant Food case are not pres-
ent here. However, I am of the opinion that a multiple-employer unit
in a union-shop election is inappropriate even though the multiple-
employer unit in the present case is appropriate for collective bargain-
ing purposes under a Section 9 (a) proceeding.
Collective bargaining is an affirmative means for employees and
employers to improve their mutual relations. Among the improve-
ments sought to be achieved thereby are increased earnings, more
healthful and satisfactory local conditions, higher production, etc.
However, the type of election here involved will determine whether a
union and an employer will have the power to deprive an employee of
° See, generally, Sections 7, 8 (a) (3), and 9 (e).
a Section 8 (a) (3).
9 Matter of Giant Food Shopping Center, Inc , 77 N. L. R B. 791.
1322 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
his basic right to work. The employee is entitled to have a real and
effective say in the granting of such authority. This can best be
accomplished by the establishment of separate units for each employer.
I believe that this limitation is consistent with, and indeed required
by, the broad freedom granted by the amended Act to employees
in their jobs. Otherwise, for example, in the case of two employers
(A and B) having 100 and 50 employees eligible to vote, respectively,
a majority of the employees of Employer A may impose union security
controls on an unwilling majority of Employer B's employees; con-
versely, an unwilling majority at Employer A's plant may defeat the
willing majority at Employer B's plant. I do not believe that Con-
gress intended such a result.
I would direct separate elections among the employees of each
separate employer if the requisite showing in each unit is present.