Grand Rapids Fuel Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 26, 1954

107 N.L.R.B. 1402 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

1402 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
GRAND RAPIDS FUEL COMPANY and JAMES REDNER, Pe-
titioner . Case No. 7-RD-162. February 26, 1954
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Emil C. Farkas
and Herbert C. Kane, hearing officers. The hearing officers'
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 Petitioner seeks a decertification electionin a unit of
the Employer's truckdrivers. The Intervenor, Local 406,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen and Helpers of America, AFL, contends that no
election should be directed for the reason, among others, that
the Employer is not engaged in commerce within the meaning
of the Act. The Employer takes no position on the question
of jurisdiction.
Grand Rapids Fuel Company is not a corporate entity
but, according to the testimony of the Employer's officials,
is a sales or branch office of Webb Coal Company, a Michigan
corporation engaged in the retail coal business, with principal
offices in Port Huron, Michigan. Webb Coal Company has 24
such sales or brartch offices, 2 of which are located in Ohio,
2 in Indiana, and 20 in Michigan. The Employer is 1 of 2
branches located in Grand Rapids, Michigan.
Each branch sells and delivers coal principally to house-
holders but also to a few commercial enterprises in its im-
mediate vicinity. Each branch orders its coal from the Port
Huron office, which then buys the coal from mines located in
Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Kentucky, West Virginia, and Virginia,
and has it shipped directly to the branch. A total of $1,600,000
worth of coal was shipped from other States to Michigan
branches last year, of which coal valued at $ 74,400 was
shipped to the Employer.
The manager of the Employer is responsible to the supervisor
of the Webb Coal Company's western district. The position of
district supervisor is held by the manager of the other branch
office located in Grand Rapids. He in turn is responsible to
the assistant general manager in the Port Huron office. The
latter testified that he is in complete charge of operations.
The Port Huron office pays the mines for coal shipped to
the branches, pays for all equipment used by the branches,
and pays the wages of branch employees. The manager of the
Employer deposits cash from sales in a bank account in the
branch name but makes no withdrawals from this account.
The price of coal sold is set by the branch manager and the
Port Huron office. The branch office sends daily sales reports to
the Port Huron office. The latter files joint income- and sales-
tax returns for all branches.
107 NLRB No 277.
GRAND RAPIDS FUEL COMPANY 1403
Each branch operates under its own license and keeps its
own payroll records. There is little or no interchange of
employees or equipment among branches . Branch managers
do the hiring and firing for their branches . They have authority
to negotiate and sign collective -bargaining agreements, but
company officials testified that branch managers cannot agree
to any contract provision without approval of the Port Huron
office , that all contracts are submitted to that office for
approval before signing , and that upon approvalitis the branch
manager's duty to sign without change.
As the Employer is a part of Webb Coal Company, a single
multistate enterprise with integrated operational and labor
policies , and as the combined direct inflow from outside the
State of Michigan to the 20 retail coal outlets maintained by
Webb in Michigan amounted to $1,600,000 , we find that the
Employer is engaged in commerce and that it will effectuate
the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction in this case. 1
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent
employees of the Employer.
3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the
representation of 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 Petitioner requests a decertification election in a unit
of all retail truckdrivers of the Employer . The Intervenor
contends that the bargaining history establishes thatonlya unit
of drivers of all retail coal dealers in Grand Rapids is
appropriate . The Employer contendsthat the unit petitioned for
is appropriate.
The Intervenor has been the recognized representative of the
Employer ' s drivers under successive yearly contracts since
approximately 1949. These contracts have been jointly negotiated
by a representative of each retail coal dealer in Grand Rapids
whose employees have been organized by the Intervenor, in-
cluding both branches of Webb Coal Company located in Grand
Rapids, a representative of the employees of each such dealer,
and the Intervenor ' s business agent. As a result of these
negotiations , separate but identical contracts have been executed
with each dealer .2 The dealers so associated in bargaining
hold meetings to decide points of disagreement before ne-
gotiating such points with the Intervenor . Occasionally the
dealer group appoints a committee of 1 or 2 to negotiate specific
issues.
In the negotiations preceding the most recent contracts,
which were conducted during the summer of 1953 on the
i The Borden Company, 91 NLRB 628; Federal Dairy Co , Inc., 91 NLRB 638 In asserting
jurisdiction Chairman Farmer is not to be deemed thereby as agreeing with the Board's
present jurisdictional standards.
2On one occasion , the contracts for the Webb Coal Company branches differed from those
of the other local dealers in one respect.
1404 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
customary multiemployer basis , both local branches of Webb
Coal Company , including the Employer , were represented by
the district supervisor . Although the manager of the Employer
signed the resultant contract for his branch ,3 he attended none of
the negotiations.
On these facts , and on the record as a whole , we find the
pattern of bargaining described above controlling in determining
the appropriate unit in this proceeding . We therefore find a
unit limited to the employees of the Employer too limited in
scope and consequently inappropriate. r, Accordingly , we shall
dismiss the petition.6
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
Member Rodgers took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Order.
3 The manager testified that when the Intervenor's representative presented him with the
contract for signature and informed him that it had been approved by the Webb Coal Company's
Port Huron office, the manager telephoned his district supervisor and "asked him if it was
all right if I read the contract through before I signed it," because "I had not attended the
labor negotiations and wasn't exactly fully informed as to the exact text of the contract."
4 The manager testified that he was present during negotiations of the preceding contract,
but "I did not say a word in the whole proceedings."
5 Des Moines Packing Company, 106 NLRB 206.
6In view of our disposition of this issue, we find it unnecessary to rule on the propriety
of the Employer's role in the filing of the petition, or on the question of contract bar.
SEA BEAVER CORPORATION and INDUSTRIAL UNION OF
MARINE AND SHIPBUILDING WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO,
Petitioner . Case No. 2-RC - 6308. February 26, 1954
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Louis A.
Schneider, hearing 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, a Delaware corporation withits sole place
of business in Greenwich, Connecticut, is engaged in the
manufacture and repair of boats and the manufacture of
special wood containers . Since January 1952, the Employer
has been engaged primarily in the construction of minesweepers
and personnel boats under contract with the United States Navy.
This contract, in the amount of $ 798, 000, exclusive of certain
Government-furnished supplies , is to be completed sometime
in 1954. In 1953 the Employer received progress payments of
about 25-35 percent of the value of the contract.
The Employer also shipped material valued at $ 10,000 to
Wright Aeronautical Corp. in New Jersey, delivered to New
107 NLRB No. 280.