Grocers Wholesale, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 6, 1967

163 N.L.R.B. 937 (N.L.R.B. 1967)

GROCERS WHOLESALE, INC.
Grocers Wholesale , Inc. and David Unruh, et
al., Petitioners and Teamsters Local No.
959, International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Help-
ers of America . Case 19-RD-345.
April 6,1967
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS FANNING
AND BROWN
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a
hearing was held before Hearing Officer Roger B.
Buchanan of the National Labor Relations Board.
The Hearing Officer's rulings made at the hearing
are free from prejudicial error and are hereby af-
firmed. No briefs were filed by any of the parties.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel.
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 Petitioners, employees of the Employer,
assert that the Union, a labor organization, is no
longer their representative as defined in Section 9(a)
of the Act.
3. The question concerning representation:
The Union contends that it has an existing
bargaining contract with the Employer which is a bar
to this proceeding. The Employer takes no position
on this matter.
In December 1965, the Employer and the Union
entered into a contract effective from July 1, 1965, to
June 30, 1969, covering a bargaining unit of the
Employer's truckdrivers and warehousemen. The
contract provides for a series of annual wage
increases, including an 18-cent-per-hour increase
which was to become effective on July 1, 1966. In
May or June 1966, the Union polled the Employer's
employees as to whether they were willing to forego
the impending wage increase and apply it, instead,
to a pension plan proposed by the Union. A majority
of employees voted against this proposal. Before
July 1, 1966, Carr, the Union's secretary-treasurer,
requested the Employer to place the money due the
employees under the automatic wage increase of
July 1 into an escrow bank account pending another
vote of the employees regarding the pension plan.
The Employer complied and the employees have not
received the wage increase.
At a union meeting held on October 8, 1966, Carr
conducted a second vote among the employees, after
937
warning them that if a majority of the Employer's 24
employees voted against the pension proposal the
Union would abandon or surrender the contract with
the Employer. The employees, all of whom were
then members of the Union, voted 14 to 9 against the
proposal. Immediately after the voting, Carr insisted
that those employees who voted against the plan sign
the following statement:
REJECTION OF UNION REPRESENTATION
Inasmuch as Teamsters Local 959 has
developed a new Alaska Teamster Employer
Pension Plan and inasmuch as the opinion of
the undersigned concerning this pension differs
from that of the general membership, the
undersigned believe that it would be in their
best interests to reject further representation by
Teamsters Local 959.
The undersigned certify, therefore, that they
no longer desire to be represented by Team-
sters Local 959 and they release Local 959 from
any further obligation to enforce the current
collective bargaining agreement between Local
959 and our Employer. Henceforth, we will
negotiate with our employer by ourselves.
The employees who voted against the proposal
refused to sign this statement, but 12 of them later
did so after Carr threatened that their refusal would
result in the pension plan taking effect on the next
workday. Within a few days thereafter, each of the
12 employees received from the Union, without any
request on their part, an "honorable withdrawal
card."
In support of its contract-bar contention, the
Union asserts that it has continued to administer the
contract on behalf of all employees, including those
who are no longer members. It appears from the
record evidence, however, that the Union has
withdrawn representation from a substantial number
of employees in the collective-bargaining unit
covered by the contract urged as a bar. In the
circumstances, the contract cannot serve as a bar to
an election in this proceeding.'
We find that a question concerning representation
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.
4. The appropriate unit:
In accordance with the agreement of the parties,
we find that all drivers and warehousemen employed
at the Employer's Anchorage, Alaska, operations,
excluding office clerical employees, professional
employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the
Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of
collective bargaining within the meaning of Section
9(b) of the Act.
' See N Samergrade & Sons,121 NLRB 667,669--670
163 NLRB No. 133
938 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
[Text of Direction of Election2 omitted from
publication.]
2 An election eligibility list, containing the names and
addresses of all the voters, must be filed by the Employer with the
Regional Director for Region 19 within 7 days after the date of this
Decision and Direction of Election The Regional Director shall
make the list available to all parties to the election No extension
of time to file this list shall be granted by the Regional Director
except in extraordinary circumstances Failure to comply with
this requirement shall be grounds for setting aside the election
whenever proper objections are filed Excelsior Underwear, Inc ,
156 NLRB 1236
McGregor Printing Corporation and United
Steelworkers of America AFL-CIO.' Case
6-CA-3332.
April 7, 1967
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS FANNING
AND ZAGORIA
On April 20, 1966, Trial Examiner Thomas S.
Wilson issued his Decision in this 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 Trial Examiner's Decision.
Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial
Examiner's Decision and a supporting brief, the
General Counsel filed a brief in support of the De-
cision, and Respondent filed an answering brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and briefs, and
the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the
findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner only to the extent consistent
herewith.
Following an election, the Board, on
November 23, 1964, certified the Steelworkers as
bargaining representative of Respondent's
' herein called the Steelworkers
employees employed at its Neville Island,
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, printing plant.
Negotiations for a collective-bargaining agreement
began early in December 1964, and by February 27,
1965,2 the parties had made considerable progress
toward agreement on most noneconomic issues.
However, because dissatisfied with Respondent's
wage- offer (presented to the Steelworkers on
February 27), the employees struck on March 1.
Picketing began immediately, and continued until
the plant was closed on April 23 (discussed below).
Since sometime in 1962, Thomas McGregor,
Respondent's president, had been considering
locating a second plant in southeastern United
States. By late 1964, he had narrowed his search to
the State of Alabama, and was negotiating seriously
with Mr. Richard Smith, of the Chamber of
Commerce of York, Alabama, about the possibility
of locating there. Smith located land that suited
McGregor. On February 16, 1965, he informed
McGregor that he could obtain the land at a price
McGregor considered acceptable. McGregor said,
however, that he had to leave immediately on a
business trip to Europe, but that Smith should not
allow the land to be sold before he returned.
McGregor returned from Europe to find his Neville
Island plant on strike. On March 20, he signed an
agreement to lease a plant in York, which would be
built for him by the York Chamber of Commerce.
Bargaining at Neville Island had been
discontinued at the outset of the strike. However,
through the efforts of city and State officials, the
parties agreed to return to the bargaining table, and
bargaining sessions resumed on March 25. Sessions
were held on March 25 and on April 1 and 14, and
the parties agreed upon April 21 as a tentative date
for their next meeting. They were unable to meet on
that date, but agreed to arrange for a future date. No
further meetings were held, as, on April 23,
McGregor decided to close the Neville Island plant
permanently. A report of the closing appeared in the
newspapers the following morning. Formal notice of
closing was given the Steelworkers on April 27.
The Steelworkers was given no advance notice
that the plant would be closed. Although
Respondent had, in every bargaining session, stated
that it might become necessary to close the plant if
an acceptable agreement were not reached, we
agree with the Trial Examiner that this did not
amount to notice, and was rightly construed by the
Steelworkers as merely a "bargaining tactic." It is
uncontested that none of the employees or
representatives of the Steelworkers knew of Mr.
McGregor's plans with regard to York. In fact, not
2 Unless otherwise specified, all dates herein refer to 1965
163 NLRB No. 113