Hoffman Radio Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 21, 1950

90 N.L.R.B. 2014 (N.L.R.B. 1950)

In the Matter of HOFFMAN RADIO CORPORATION, EMPLOYER and FURNI-
TURE WORKERS UNION, LOCAL No. 3161, UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF
CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF AMERICA, A. F. OF L., PETITIONER
Case No. 21-RC-1079.-Decided August 21,1950
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Irving Helbling, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.,
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 [Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Murdock].
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 labor organizations involved claim to represent employees
of the Employer.
3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion 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 unit limited to approximately 370 pro-
duction, maintenance, and cafeteria employees, warehousemen, jani-
tors, and truck drivers at the Employer's plants in Los Angeles, Cali-
fornia, currently represented by the Teamsters. It would exclude
from the unit approximately 730 assemblers, final assemblers, rivet
machine operators, cable lacers, alignors, inspectors, television testmen,
special apparatus testmen, production repairmen, tool, die and pattern
makers, machinists and tool crib attendant, now represented by the
IBEW.
' At the hearing , the Intervenors , Local Union 598, International Brotherhood of
Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen , and Helpers of America , AFL, hereinafter called
the Teamsters , and Local B-11, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL,
hereinafter referred to as the IBEW, moved to dismiss the petition on the ground, inter
alia, that the unit sought is inappropriate . The motion was referred by the hearing officer
to the Board . For the reasons stated hereinafter, the motion is granted.
90 NLRB No. 290.
2014
HOFFMAN RADIO CORPORATION 2015
The Teamsters; IBEW, and the Employer contend that principally
in view of the Board's prior certification and the bargaining history
on a more comprehensive basis, only a broad unit consisting of all
production, maintenance, and cafeteria employees, janitors, and truck
• drivers, is appropriate 2
The Employer is a California corporation engaged in the manu-
facture and distribution of radios, television receivers, and electronic
equipment. Its operations are confined to six plants located in various
parts of Los Angeles, four of which are located within approximately
one block of one another and the remaining two about 1Y2 miles away.
The operations of these plants are highly interdependent, with the
individual plants, in general, performing various steps necessary to
the completion of the Employer's finished products 3
The Employer has been in a collective bargaining relationship with
respect to the employees in its Los Angeles plants since about May
1946. At that time, the Employer executed a contract with the Hoff-
man Employees' Association, an independent labor organization which
later became affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, cover-
ing all production and maintenance employees on a company-wide
basis. On January 16, 1947, the Board issued its decision, finding a
comprehensive production and maintenance unit appropriate,4 and
on March 24, 1947, certified the "American Federation of Labor and
Affiliated Unions" as the bargaining representatives of the employees
in that unit. Thereafter, a collective bargaining agreement, effective
May 1, 1947, and extending to April 30, 1948, was executed by the
Employer and by the Teamsters and IBEW jointly, embracing the
employees in the unit found appropriate by the Board.
On January 14, 1948, upon separate petitions for union-security
authorization filed by the Teamsters and IBEW, the Employer en^
tered into separate consent election agreements with these ^ organ.
zations covering the employees each then represented. Together,
these agreements covered all the employees in the previously estab-
The Employer and Teamsters also assert that their existing contract constitutes a bar
to this proceeding . In February 1949, the Employer and Teamsters entered into a contract
.with a termination date of February 16, 1950, and containing a 60-day automatic renewal
clause. On December 12, 1949, allegedly due to its desire to facilitate production planning
for the coming year, the Employer executed a new contract with the Teamsters granting
a wage increase and extending the then existing contract to February 16, 1951. The in-
stant petition was.filed on December 12, 1949. Apart from other considerations, as the
contract executed on December 12, 1949, constituted a premature extension of the February
1949 contract and as the petition herein was timely filed with respect to the latter agree-
ment, , the current contract clearly does not constitute a bar. Union Steel Castings Division
of Bldw-Knbx Company, 88 NLRB 209, and cases cited.
s None of the patties seeks to establish separate plant units.
4 Hoffman Radio Corporation , 72 NLRB 177 . In that case , the IBEW and Teamsters
intervened and were jointly designated as the "American Federation of Labor and Affiliated
Unions."
2016 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
lished unit. Separate union-security authorizations were thereafter
issued by the Regional Director on January 27, 1948, and since that
time, the Employer has executed individual collective 'bargaining
agreements with the Teamsters and IBEW. However, the record
clearly shows that the collective bargaining negotiations preceding
these contracts were, in general, conducted jointly by the Teamsters
and IBEW as representatives of the Employer's employees.-' And the
subsequent contracts established substantially the same terms and
conditions of employment for both groups of employees.
Functionally, there is a close interrelationship between the groups
of employees currently represented by the Teamsters and the IBEW.
Thus, for example, employees in both groups work side by side on
the final assembly and inspection operations, and in packing and ship-
ping the completed products. Moreover, there are frequent inter-
changes and transfers of employees between the two groups and some
overlapping of duties. There are also numerous instances of em-
ployees of both groups working under common supervision.
In view of the foregoing, including the interrelationship of em-
ployees, the ' Board's prior unit determination in the representation
proceeding and the history of collective bargaining which, in.prac-
tice, has embraced a comprehensive production and maintenance unit,
we are of the opinion that a unit limited to a segment of the produc-
tion and maintenance employees, as requested by the Petitioner, is in-
appropriate 6 While, as contended by the Petitioner, the Board's re-
cent union-security authorizations covered separate units, such au-
thorizations, based on consent election agreements, are clearly not dis-
positive.7 Accordingly, as the unit sought by the Petitioner is in-
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining, we find that
no question affecting commerce exists within an appropriate unit, and
shall dismiss the petition filed herein.
ORDER
Upon the. basis of the entire record in the case, the Board hereby
orders that the petition herein filed by Furniture Workers Union,
Local No. 3161, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of
America, A. F. of L., be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
6 Wage rates and certain job classifications affecting only employees under IBEW juris-
diction were separately negotiated by that organization.
0 See Sterling Pulp and Paper Company, 77 NLRB 63.
7 Peoples Life Insurance Company, 72 NLRB 1406; Westinghouse Electric Corporation,
89 NLRB 8. See also Giant Food Shopping Center, Inc ., 77 NLRB 791.