Halquist Lannon Stone Co., et al.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 7, 1966

156 N.L.R.B. 694 (N.L.R.B. 1966)

694 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Halquist Lannon Stone Co., et al., and Drivers , Salesmen, Ware-
housemen , Milk Processors , Cannery, Dairy Employees and
Helpers, Local 695, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers of America,' Petitioner
Consumers Company, Division of Vulcan Materials Company,2
Petitioner and Drivers, Salesmen , Warehousemen , Milk Proc-
essors, Cannery, Dairy Employees and Helpers , Local 695,
International Brotherhoods of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen and Helpers of America . Cases Nos. 30-RC-268 and
30-RM-28. January 7,1966
DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended, a consolidated hearing was held
before Hearing Officer Russ R. Mueller at Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
The Hearing Officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from
prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Briefs were filed by Con-
sumers, Local 695, and jointly by the Journeymen Stonecutters
Association of North America, AFL-CIO,' and its Lannon Local.4
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the National
Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members
Jenkins and Zagoria].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employers 5 are engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act," and it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert juris-
diction herein.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain
employees of the Employers.
1 Hereinafter referred to as Local 695.
2 Hereinafter referred to as Consumers.
8 Hereinafter referred to as the Association.
* The Lannon Local of the Journeymen Stonecutters Association of North America,
AFL-CIO, and the Association were permitted to intervene at the hearing
6In addition to Consumers , the Employers named in the petition in Case No. 30-RC-
268 are Halquist Lannon Stone Co., Milwaukee Lannon Stone Co , Wislanco Lannon Stone
Co, O. Monacelli Lannon Stone Co, and Midwest Lannon Stone Co (At the hearing the
petition was amended to exclude Weather Rock Stone Company )
6 The Board has administratively determined that the business of Midwest Lannon
Stone Company is insufficient to warrant the assertion of jurisdiction under the Board's
applicable standards. In view of the finding infra that the multiemployer bargaining
unit sought by Local 695 is no longer in existence , the petition in Case No . 30'-RC-268
is dismissed as to Midwest The jurisdictional finding pertaining to Midwest is based on
administrative advice not a part of the record herein , any party desiring to show the
contrary may do so by promptly filing a sufficient offer of proof. grist Uradis, et al,
121 NLRB 601, 603, footnote 9
156 NLRB No. 68.
HALQUIST LANNON STONE CO., ET AL. 695
3. Questions affecting commerce exist concerning the representa-
tion of certain employees of the Employers within the meaning of
Section 9(c) (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of theAct.7
4. The Employers operate stone quarries in the Lannon, Wisconsin,
area and employ stone and veneer cutters and sawed veneer trimmers.
Local 695, the Petitioner in Case No. 30-RC-268, seeks an election
among the cutters and trimmers in an all-inclusive multiemployer
unit,8 or alternatively in either a. multiemployer unit of all the Employ-
ers except Consumers with a single-employer unit as to Consumers, or
all single-employer units but with Halquist Lannon and Milwaukee
Lannon Stone Companies treated as a single employer. The Lannon
Local, the Association, and the Employers contend that the multi-
employer unit no longer exists and that only single-employer units are
appropriate . The Lannon Local and the Association also claim that
there are currently effective contracts with some of the Employers
which bar elections among these Employers' employees.
The Employers have recognized the Lannon Local as the representa-
tive of the employees here involved since at least 1955. In 1955 the
Employers, or their predecessors, formed the Wisconsin Dimension
Stone Industry, Inc., to negotiate their labor agreements. Sometime
prior to 1959 the formal structure of the employer association was
disbanded and the 1959 and 1962 negotiations were conducted by a
committee of two or three of the owners. The resulting contracts were
signed jointly by the Employers. The agreement negotiated in 1962
had a terminal date of May 31, 1965.
In April 1964, Consumers purchased the Quality Lime Stone Com-
pany, one of the parties to the 1962-65 contract, and continued opera-
tions with substantially the same employees. In early April 1964,
Consumers' Manager Eckstein met with representatives of the Lannon
Local and Hensen, president of the Association, and told them that
Consumers did not want to participate in multiemployer bargaining.
The union officials agreed to bargain individually with Consumers and
subsequently a contract was executed between Consumers and the
Lannon Local.9
Upon the foregoing facts, we reject Local 695's contention that
Consumers is a member of a multiemployer unit. We find that Con-
7 The contract which Wislanco Lannon Stone Company and the Lannon Local signed
prior to the filing of the petition , discussed infra, constitutes a bar to an election. Con-
sequently , there is no question concerning representation as to this Employer.
8 Local 695 also represents a unit of laborers employed by the same Employers
O The contract was between the Lannon Local and Consumers alone, whereas the
1962-65 multiemployer contract was an agreement between the Lannon Local and Em-
ployers collectively . Consumers ' contract also permitted it to institute its own welfare
plan, while the multiemployer contract provided for a union -administered plan
696 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
sumers' stone and veneer cutters and sawed veneer trimmers constitute
a separate appropriate unit.'°
We further find that none of the Employers belong to a multiem-
ployer group; that, in other words, the multiemployer unlit no longer
exists. In March 1965, the Lannon Local notified each contract sig-
natory of its intention to negotiate a new contract without suggesting
whether negotiations be on a group or an individual basis. In early
April, the Lannon Local's president and Al Mueller, business agent for
Local 695 who had been hired by the Lannon Local to conduct its
negotiations, met with Alvin Halquist (involved in the operations of
both Halquist Lannon and Milwaukee Lannon) and presented their
local's demands. Halquist informed the union representatives that
he planned to negotiate with them on an individual employer basis.
At this point factional strife within the Lannon Local came to a
head with an effort by some members on April 26 to disaffiliate from
the Association and affiliate with Local 695. On April 29, Mueller,
now speaking as the Local 695 representative, wrote to each Employer
claiming that Local 695 now had the bargaining rights formerly held
by Lannon Local 11 and requesting that bargaining start for a new
contract. As neither of the Lannon Local's pre-April 26 negotiators
was now available to conduct negotiations for the local, Mueller
because he had reverted to his role as an agent of Local 695 and the
Lannon Local president because he favored affiliation with Local 695,
Association President Hensen began negotiations on behalf of the
Lannon Local on April 27 2
Hensen began negotiations with Consumers on April 27 and reached
an agreement with it the next day. He then began negotiations with
members of the Halquist family for Halquist Lannon and Milwaukee
Lannon and the next day, April 29, reached agreement with them.
Hensen then negotiated an agreement with the Wislanco Stone Com-
pany. After the Consumers' agreement had been negotiated, that
10 Local 695 argues that such cases as John Wiley & Sons , Inc v. David Livingston, etc.,
376 U S 543 , and The Wackenhut Corporation v international Union, United Plant Guard
Workers of America, and its Local 151, 332 F 2d 954 (C .A. 9), require a finding that
Consumers , as a successor to Quality, also succeeded to Its position in the multlemployer
unit We find no merit to this argument because, even if Consumers did succeed to
Quality's position , the evidence demonstrates that Consumers withdrew from group bar-
gaining with the consent of the Lannon Local . Retail Associates , Inc., 120 NLRB
388, 395.
11 Local 695 does not now contend that the purported transfer of bargaining rights
on April 26 was effective , but does make a related argument that there can be no con-
tract bars to an election in this case because the Lannon Local became defunct as a
result of the meeting of April 26 We find that the Lannon Local did not become defunct
but remained willing and able to represent the employees. The local was badly split and
its president defected , but the other officers continued the local 's functions , the assets
remained in their control , and the Employers continued to check off dues See Ilcrshey
Chocolate Corporation , 121 NLRB 901, 911
12 As Indicated , Hensen bargained for the Lannon Local during the 1964 negotiations
with Consumers . In addition , he conducted the Lannon Local's 1962 negotiations with
the committee of Employers.
HALQUIST LANNON STONE CO., ET AL. 697
agreement was used as the basis for subsequent negotiations with other
Employers, but both the Halquists' and Wislanco's negotiator sug-
gested variations from the Consumers' contract during their negotia-
tions. After Hensen reached agreement with each of the Employers,
he visited the employees of that Employer and explained the agree-
ment to them. A majority of each Employer's employees approved the
contracts.
The negotiations described above were plainly conducted on an
individual employer basis pursuant to an understanding of the parties
involved that there was no longer a multiemployer bargaining unit
in existence.13 Local 695's contention that the multiemployer unit
continued in existence is based upon the fact that written notices of
withdrawal were not submitted by the Employers. This contention
is grounded upon an incorrect view of the rule requesting written
notices of withdrawal set forth in Retail Associates, Inc.14 As indi-
cated in Retail Associates,lo the requirement of written notice to effect
a withdrawal from group bargaining presupposes the absence of con-
sent to the withdrawal by other parties involved and is inapplicable to
actions, as in this case, which are taken by mutual consent.
Local 695 contends that the stone and veneer cutters and sawed
veneer trimmers of Halquist Lannon and Milwaukee Lannon Stone
Companies constitute a single unit. Halquist Lannon Stone Company
is a partnership owned by the Halquist family. Milwaukee Lannon
Stone Company is a corporation which is operated by the Halquist
family. Bud Halquist, Jr., testified that he was responsible for form-
ulating and carrying out the labor policy of both companies and that
the labor policy of both companies has been the same since 1961. More-
over, the negotiations with Hensen in 1965 were for both companies.
Accordingly, we find that the stone and veneer cutters and sawed
veneer trimmers of Halquist Lannon Stone Company and Milwaukee
Lannon Stone Company constitute a single unit and that single-
employer units of the remaining Employers' stone and veneer cutters
and sawed veneer trimmers are appropriate."-
11 The written contract mailed to each Employer in early May stated that it was a
joint agreement Hensen explained that this was the result of an administrative error
occasioned by the use of the old contract as a form for typing the new one Separate
contracts were mailed to each Employer, however, and the last paragraph of these con-
tracts provided room for the signature of only one Employer . In 1962 all the Employers
signed a single contract
14120 NLRB 388, 395.
15Ibid -
110. Monacelli Stone Company and Midwest Lannon Stone Company neither took part
in the hearing nor submitted briefs . Further , none of the parties that did participate in
the hearing took the position that these Employers should be treated differently from the
other Employers The record does disclose, however, that neither Hensen, Held, nor
Mueller negotiated with them and that their total employee complement comprises less
than 10 percent of the membership of the Lannon Local. Thus, in view of the fact that
the multiemployer unit has dissolved and because no issue has been raised as to these
698 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
We reject the contention by the Lannon Local and the Association
that an oral agreement with Consumers and a memorandum of agree-
ment signed by the Halquists bar elections among those Employers'
employees, but find merit in the related claim that a signed contract
with Wislanco bars an election. The record shows that after Hensen
negotiated the agreements described above, but before final contracts
could be prepared and signed, the Employers each received a copy of
Mueller's April 29 letter asserting Local 695's claim. Hensen then
obtained from Bud Halquist and Wislanco (but not from Consumers)
a signed memorandum stating that they had reached final agreement
with the Lannon Local. The memorandum did not set forth the terms
of the agreement. Then, prior to the filing of Local 695's petition on
June 1, Hensen mailed each of these Employers a typed copy of the
agreement and requested that they sign and return it. Only Wislanco
signed and returned the contract.
Under the Board's contract-bar rules, it is clear that in order to
bar an election a contract must be signed prior to the filing of the
petition and substantially set forth the terms and conditions of employ-
ment.17 The Wislanco contract meets these standards, but the signed
memorandum with the Halquists and the oral agreement with Con-
sumers do not. We therefore shall order that the petition in Case
No. 30-RC-268 be dismissed as to Wislanco Lannon Stone Company.
Accordingly, we find appropriate, for purposes of collective bar-
gaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act, separate units
composed of the stone and veneer cutters and sawed veneer trimmers
employed at stone quarries of each of the following Employers :
(a) Halquist Lannon and Milwaukee Lannon Stone Companies;
(b) Consumer Company; and (c) O. Monacelli Lannon Stone
Company.'8
[The Board dismissed the petition in Case No. 30-RC-268 insofar
as it relates to Midwest Lannon Stone Company and Wislanco Lannon
Stone Company.]
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.]
two relatively small Employers, we find that a separate unit of Monacelli ' s cutters and
trimmers is also appropriate , and dismiss the petition as to Midwest for the reason stated
in footnote 6, supra.
Member Zagoria concurs in the conclusion that single -employer units are appropriate
in this case , but solely on the grounds that the preexisting multiemployer unit has been
voluntarily dissolved by the parties thereto, and Local 695 has indicated a willingness
to accept single-employer units as an alternative position.
17 See, a g., Appalachian Shale Products Co., 121 NLRB 1160, 1164.
18 The Board has administratively determined that , contrary to the record estimate,
0. Monacelll Lannon Stone Company employs four employees in the unit herein found
appropriate . Consequently , an election will be directed among this Employer ' s stone and
veneer cutters and sawed veneer trimmers . As this finding is based on administrative
advice not a part of the record herein, any party desiring to show the contrary may do
so by promptly filing a sufficient offer of proof . Krist Gradis , et al ., 121 NLRB 601, 603,
footnote 9.