General Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Etc., Local 249

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 29, 1962

139 N.L.R.B. 605 (N.L.R.B. 1962)

GENERAL TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, ETC., LOCAL 249 605
direction of an immediate election will effectuate the policies of the
Act."
In directing the election, we do so without prejudice to either party,
and shall expressly condition any certification resulting from such
election on the determination or determinations we may subsequently
make arising out of the pending unfair labor practice cases, and we
shall take such action as may be necessary to effectuate the policies
of the Act with respect thereto i2
We find that all hourly rated production and maintenance em-
ployees in the Employer's Union City, Tennessee, plant, excluding all
management representatives, executive and supervisory employees,
foremen, assistant foremen, and any employee who has the right to
hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in
the status of employees, or effectively recommend the same, all office
and clerical employees, professional employees, timekeepers, and plant
protection employees, constitute a unit appropriate for collective bar-
gaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act."
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
MEMBER RODGERS took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Direction of Election.
11 West-('ate Sun Harbor Company, 93 NLRB 830; Columbia Pictures Corporation, et al,
81 NLRB 1313, 1314-1315.
12 New York Shipping Association and its members, 107 NLRB 364, 376.
18 The appropriate unit appears as is set forth in article I, section 1, of the last agree-
ment between the parties
General Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America, Local 249, affiliated with International Brotherhood
of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America ' and Office and Clerical Employees , Local 72, affili-
ated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of Arierica,2 Petitioner. Case No.
6-PC-3142. October 29. 1962
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Herbert Schutzman, hear-
ing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
1 The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing
s The name of the Petitioner appears as amended at the hearing
139 NLRB No. 39.
''FOG DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain
employees of the Employer. At the hearing, Office Employees Inter-
national Union, Local No. 33, AFL-CIO, the Intervenor, moved to
dismiss the petition on the ground of conflict of interest between the
Employer and the Petitioner. We find merit in this contention for
the following reasons :
The record shows that the Petitioner and the Employer are both
locals and members of the Teamsters' International organization and
of Teamsters Joint Council No. 40, a federation of locals. Thus the
Petitioner and the Employer are subject to International's constitu-
tion and bylaws,' which provide for control and participation by the
International and the Joint Council in various functions and activities
of the locals. For example, with respect to strikes, article XII of the
International's constitution prescribes the method for taking a strike
vote by a local. It also provides that the local must notify the Joint
Council of any proposed strike action, and that the Joint Council
must approve or disapprove the strike and notify the International
of its action. The International is then empowered to approve or dis-
approve the proposed strike. This article also provides for control by
the International over the right to receive strike benefits.
Terms of employment, such as wages, rates, hours, and working con-
ditions, are determined and negotiated separately by each local union.
However, proposed agreements must be submitted to the Joint Council
in certain instances, and final agreements must be submitted to the
International for approval. Under the International's constitution,
where it is informed of a proposed execution of a contract which pro-
vides for working conditions or wages less than those prevailing in
the area, the International may prevent the execution of this contract.
Also, the International is empowered to take disciplinary action when
it finds that a local without good cause executes agreements which ad-
versely affect members of the International. If member locals of the
Joint Council decide to bargain on a multiunion basis, the bargaining
arrangements and the method of ratification of the contracts are deter-
mined by the local so affected, but must be in accordance with the con-
stitution of the International. Grievances are handled by the locals,
except that the Joint Council participates in grievance machinery in
over-the-road and city freight areawide agreements. In one instance
the business representative of the Petitioner requested that the Joint
Council participate even in the type of grievance which is ordinarily
handled only by the local. There is evidence of a financial connection
between the Petitioner and the Employer in the fact that both the
International and the Joint Council contributed to the Petitioner's
8 while each local may have its own bylaws (the Petitioner at the time of the hearing
was in the process of adopting as its own the constitution and bylaws of the Interna-
tional), in the event of conflict, the bylaws of the International prevail.
AIR CONTROL PRODUCTS, INC. 607
organizational expenses. Also, member locals of the Joint Council
must pay a monthly per capita tax to the Joint Council.
In these circumstances, we believe that the Petitioner is not com-
petent to bargain concerning the terms of the employment of the Em-
ployer's employees. As the Board stated in the Oregon Teamsters
case,4 a union which has allegiances conflicting with the purpose of pro-
tecting and advancing the interest of the employees it represents, as
does the Petitioner in this case, cannot be a proper representative of
these employees. Accordingly, we shall grant the Intervenor's motion
to dismiss the petition herein.&
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH and MEMBER LEEDOM took no part in the
consideration of the above Decision and Order.
4 Oregon Teamsters' Security Plan Office, et al., 119 NLRB 207, 211-212.
5In view of our determination herein , it is unnecessary to pass upon the Intervenor's
contract-bar contention.
Air Control Products, Inc. and United Steelworkers of America,
AFL-CIO and Airco Employees Association , Inc., Party to the
Contract . Cases Nos. 12-CA-2089 and 12-CA-2201. October 30,
1962
DECISION AND ORDER
On May 31, 1962, Trial Examiner Henry S. Sahm issued his Inter-
mediate Report in the above-entitled consolidated proceeding, finding
that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain un-
fair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a) (1), (2), and
(3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, and recom-
mending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirm-
ative action, as set forth in the attached Intermediate Report. He
further found that the Respondent had not engaged in an unfair
labor practice alleged in the complaint, and recommended that such
allegation be dismissed.' Thereafter, both the Respondent and Airco
Employees Association, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as Airco), a
Party to the Contract, filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report
together with supporting briefs 2
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 Rodgers, Fanning, and Brown].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
1 No exceptions were filed to this recommendation, and we therefore adopt it pro forma.
2 The Respondent's request for oral argument is hereby denied, as the record , including
the exceptions and briefs, adequately presents the issues and the positions of the parties.
139 NLRB No. 47.