Jacob Schmidt Brewing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 8, 1951

93 N.L.R.B. 738 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

'738 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
JACOB SCHMIDT BREWING COMPANY; THEn. HAMM BREWING Co. and
LOCAL No. 455, UNITED ASSOCIATION OF JOURNEYMEN & APPRENTICES
OF THE PLUMBING & PIPEFITTING INDUSTRY OF THE UNITED STATES
AND CANADA, AFL, PETITIONER. Cases Nos. 18-RC-934 and 18-RC-
935. March 8, 1951
Decision and Direction of Elections
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before Erwin A. Peter-
son, 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 Reynolds and Murdock].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employers are engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act. ,
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employers.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employers within the meaning of Section 9
(c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Petitioner seeks certification for separate bargaining units
.consisting of each Employer's steam fitters, pipe fitters, and ap-
prentices at their St. Paul, Minnesota, plants. The Employers agree
with the composition of the unit, but maintain that bargaining history
,establishes the appropriateness of a multiple-employer unit rather
than single-employer units.
The facts in this proceeding are not seriously in dispute. Since
about 1939 the Petitioner and the Employers have signed separate
identical contracts covering the employees concerned. Although the
Employers are not members of the Master Plumbers Association of
.St. Paul, there has been an understanding between each Employer
and the Petitioner that they will adopt the wage pattern set by the
contracts between the latter and the Association, with certain mod-
ifications concerning working conditions. After the association con-
tracts have been negotiated, it has been the custom for the Petitioner
to mail proposed identical contracts to each Employer. Representa-
tives of each Employer testified that after receiving the proposed
agreement, they at all times conferred between themselves concern-
ing uniform counterproposals. The Petitioner and the Employers
have never met in joint bargaining conferences, but all negotiations
93 NLRB No. 115.
JACOB SCHMIDT BREWING COMPANY 739
have been either by telephone conversations or by letters to the in-
dividual Employers.
Presumptively a single-employer unit is an appropriate unit. To
defeat claim for such a unit in favor of a broader unit, a controlling
history of collective bargaining on the broader basis must exist. In
determining whether the history of bargaining here has been on a
multiple-employer basis, an essential element to consider is whether
or not the Employers have evinced an unequivocal desire to be bound
by group rather than individual action? Although the Employers
may have conferred between themselves concerning counterproposals
to the Petitioner's proffered contracts they have never in fact
bargained jointly with the Petitioner or disclosed any unequivocal
desire to do so. Accordingly, we believe the facts here established a
history of single-employer rather than multiple-employer bargaining
concerning the pipe fitters and steam fitters.
The employers further contended that because all of their other
,employees have unquestionably been bargained for by unions not here
involved, on a multiple-employer basis, that such bargaining should
be a controlling factor in finding a multiple-employer unit for the
steam fitters and pipe fitters. Because we have construed the bargain-
ing history for steam fitters and pipe fitters to be on a single-employer
basis, we find no merit in this contention. 2
In view of the foregoing, we find that the following units of em-
ployees constitute separate appropriate units for purposes of col-
lective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act :
(1) All pipe fitters, steam fitters, and their apprentices in the me-
chanical department of Jacob Schmidt Brewing Company at its St.
Paul, Minnesota, plant, excluding all other employees and super-
visors as defined in the Act.
(2) All pipe fitters, steam fitters, and their apprentices in the main-
tenance department of Then. Hamm Brewing Co. at its St. Paul, Min-
nesota, plant, excluding all other employees and supervisors as de-
fined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication in this
volume.]
I Associated Shoe Industries of Southeastern Massachusetts, Inc, et al, 81 NLRB 224;
Air Conditionting Company of Southern California, et at, 81 NLRB 946.
1 Cf. Columbia Pictures Corporation , et al ., 84 NLRB 647.