Greenpoint Sleep Products

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 9, 1960

128 N.L.R.B. 548 (N.L.R.B. 1960)

548 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
We find that the following employees constitute a unit appropriate
for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of See-
tion.9 (b) of the Act:
All production and maintenance employees at the Employer's Glen
Cove, Long Island, New York, plant, but excluding office clerical
employees, salesmen, professional employees, guards, and all super-
visors as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
MEMBER BEAN took no part in the consideration of the above Deci-
sion and Direction of Election.
Greenpoint Sleep Products and Local 601 , Industrial Workers
Union, Petitioner. Case No. 22-RC-740. August 9, 1960
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 Paul M. Hanlon, 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 is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
Act.
2. The Petitioner and Intervenor, Local 601, Upholsterers Inter-
national Union of North America, AFL-CIO, are labor organizations
claiming to represent certain employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Sections
9(c) (1) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
Petitioner seeks a production and maintenance unit at the Employ-
er's Jersey 'City, New Jersey, plant. The parties agree as to the appro-
priateness of such unit. The Intervenor claims , however, that its con-
tract of January 7, 1960, with the Employer is a bar to the petition.
The Employer takes no position.
The Intervenor and the Employer executed a contract on August 28,
1957, which contained no automatic renewal provision and which ex-
pired by its own terms on August 28, 1959. In December 1959, Peti-
tioner conducted an organization drive, and, after obtaining author-
ization cards from the employees, approached the Employer for
recognition. On December 31, the Employer and Petitioner entered
into an agreement reading as follows :
Inasmuch as union local #601 Industrial Workers Union as
evidenced by union membership authorization cards represents
a majority of the workers employed by 'Greenpoint Sleep Prod-
128 NLRB No. 69.
GREENPOINT SLEEP PRODUCTS 549
ucts it is hereby agreed that due to a former contract with Local
601 Upholsterers In. Union that in order to avoid any jurisdic-
tional disputes that Local #601 Industrial Workers Union will
ask for an election before February 21, 1960 and that Greenpoint
Sleep Products will recognize whichever of the contending unions
will then win said election.
One week later, on January 7, 1960, the Employer and the Intervenor
executed an agreement extending the terms and conditions of the 1957
contract from August 29, 1959, to August 28, 1961. The instant peti-
tion was filed February 19, 1960.
As the Intervenor's contract was executed January 7, some 6 weeks
before the filing of the petition, the contract would be a bar, unless
the Petitioner comes within the substantial claim rule enunciated in
the Deluxe case.' In that case, after setting forth new rules for the
timely filing of petitions, the Board held that:
... this action leaves undisturbed the effect given substantial
claims, i.e., where an incumbent union continues to claim repre-
sentative status, or where a nonincumbent union has refrained
from filing a petition to establish its representative status in reli-
ance upon the employer's conduct indicating that recognition had
been granted or that a contract would be obtained without an
election. If, in these circumstances, the employer nevertheless
executes a contract with another union, that contract will con-
tinue not to bar an election. Retention of the status given sub-
stantial claims is regarded as desirable because such claims arise
in situations indicating unsavory practices.
Although it is apparent that the Petitioner, as a nonincumbent
union, was neither promised nor led to believe that it could obtain
recognition without an election, we, nonetheless, believe that the Em-
ployer's conduct fully warrants a finding that the Petitioner had a
"substantial claim" within the intendment of the Deluxe rule. For it
is clear that the Employer by his agreement of December 31 lulled
Petitioner into a sense of security leading it to believe that it had a
commitment that recognition would not be granted and a contract
would not be executed with any union until after the results of a
Board election, provided the Petitioner would request such election
before February 21, 1960. Then, only 1 week later, the Employer re-
nounced its agreement with Petitioner by executing a contract with
the Intervenor, despite its admission that the Petitioner represented
a majority of the employees on the basis of a card showing. We find
that the substantial claim rule should be applied here, as avoidance
of practices such as' that engaged in here was the very purpose for
' Deluxe Metal Furniture Company, 121 NLRB 995, 998-999.
577684-61-vol. 128-36
550 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
which the substantial claims rule was devised. We therefore deny
the Intervenor's motion to dismiss the petition.
4. The following employees of the Employer constitute a unit
appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining within Section 9(b)
of the Act : 2 All production and maintenance employees at the Em-
ployer's Jersey City, New Jersey, plant, but excluding office clerical
employees, professional employees, guards, and all supervisors within
the meaning of the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] 2
2 The unit described is in accordance with the agreement of the parties.
0 It appears from the meager record in this case , that the former business agent of the
Intervenor organized the Petitioner local and is now the president of the latter. The
details are not in the record. The evidence shows that after the formation of Petitioner
local, the Intervenor obtained an injunction in the Supreme Court of New York enjoining
the Petitioner local inter alia from using the numerical designation "601," the same
number as the Intervenor local . The Intervenor moved the Board to dismiss the petition
on the ground that the use of this number by the Petitioner in the instant proceeding
was a violation of the decree.
The Board's customary practice is to permit a union's name to appear on the ballot
as specified by it where, in the Board 's opinion , the designation will not create confusion
in the minds of the voters as to the identity of the participants in the election (Interna-
tional Harvester Company, East Moline Works , 108 NLRB 600; Sonotone Corporation, 90
NLRB 1236, 1239), and to change the name appearing on the ballot where such confu-
sion may result . ( See Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 102 NLRB 800, 802.) Although it does not
appear likely that confusion will result in this case , as the Petitioner 's name is entirely
different from that of the Intervenor , we shall , in deference to the decree of the State
supreme court, remove the designation "No. 601" from the name of the Petitioner. In
view of our action taken herein, we deny the Intervenor 's motion to dismiss the petition
on the asserted ground.
St. Regis Paper Company and International Brotherhood of
Pulp, Sulphite & Paper Mill Workers, AFL-CIO; Pineland
Local 447, International Brotherhood of Pulp , Sulphite &
Paper Mill Workers , AFL-CIO; Escambia Local 737, Inter-
national Brotherhood of Pulp , Sulphite & Paper Mill Work-
ers, AFL-CIO; Pineland Local 617, International Brotherhood
of Pulp, Sulphite & Paper Mill Workers, AFL-CIO; United
Papermakers & Paperworkers , AFL-CIO; Gulf Local 561,
United Papermakers & Paperworkers , AFL-CIO; Local 444,
United Papermakers & Paperworkers , AFL-CIO; Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO; and
Cantonment Local 1937, International Brotherhood of Elec-
trical Workers, AFL-CIO, Joint Petitioners. Case No. 15-RC-
92104. August 9, 1960
AMENDED DECISION AND ORDER
On March 21, 1960, the Board issued its Decision and Direction of
Election 1 in the above-entitled proceding in which it found wood
1126 NLRB 1157.
128 NLRB No. 70.