Johnson Optical Co., et al.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 26, 1949

85 N.L.R.B. 895 (N.L.R.B. 1949)

III the Matter Of JOHNSON- OPTICAL COMPANY, ET AL., EMPLOYERS and
UNITED OPTICAL AND INSTRUMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO,
PETITIONER
Cases Nos. 18-RC-381, 18-RC82, 18-RC83, 18-RC-384, 18-RC-
387, 18-RC-388, and 18-RC-389.-Decided August 26, 1949
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon separate petitions duly filed, a consolidated hearing was held
before Erwin A. Peterson, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rul-
ings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby
affirmed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor
Relations 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 Employers 1 are engaged in commerce within the meaning
of the National Labor Relations Act.
2. The Petitioner 2 and Twin City Optical Workers Union, Local
No. 20604, AFL, herein called the Intervenor, are labor organizations
claiming to represent certain employees 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 appropriate unit :
The Petitioner seeks to establish the laboratory employees in the
bench and surface departments at each branch of each Employer in
Minneapolis or St. Paul as a separate unit, excluding errand boys,
stockroom employees, inspectors, guards, watchmen, and supervisors.3
'The following Employers, in addition to the one specifically mentioned in the above
caption, are involved in this proceeding: Twin City Optical Company, Inc. (18-RC-382) ;
American Optical Company (18-RC-3S3 and 18-RC-384) ; Riggs Optical Company
(18-RC-387 and 18-RC-388) ; and The Walman Optical Company ( 18-RC-389).
'The name of the Petitioner, as well as that of Twin City Optical Company , Inc., ap-
pears herein as amended at the hearing.
The separate units requested by the Petitioner embrace the - Minneapolis branch of
each Employer and the St . Paul branches of American Optical Company and Riggs Optical
85 N. L. R. B., No. 154-
895
896 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Employers agree with the appropriateness of the units sought by
the Petitioner, The Intervenor, however, contends that only a single
multiple-employer unit of the Minneapolis and St. Paul branches of
all the Employers is appropriate and relies primarily on the past his-
tory of bargaining. In addition, it would include the stockroom
employees and shop inspectors in any unit or units found appropriate
by the Board.
The Employers are wholesale optical companies engaged, at the
plants involved herein, in the grinding of lenses and the fabrication
of glasses. Together, these companies comprise a majority of the
optical manufacturers in the Minneapolis and St. Paul area.'
The record indicates that the Employers have been in a continuous
collective bargaining relationship with the Intervenor since about
1936. In that year, the parties bargained with respect to the Em-
ployers' Minneapolis employees and, in the following year, the rela-
tionship was broadened to include their St. Paul employees. During
this entire time, the Employers have been represented in their nego-
tiations with the Intervenor by the same labor relations consultant,.
who, although separately retained by the individual branches of each
Employer, has conducted such negotiations simultaneously on behalf
of all the Employers. Since 1937, as a result of these negotiations,
the Intervenor and the Employers' representative have each year ex-
ecuted a single collective bargaining agreement, embracing the
Minneapolis and St. Paul branches of all the Employers.5 These
yearly contracts, by their substantive terms, established uniform
wages, hours, and other conditions of employment for the laboratory
employees at all the branches. The group of Employers included in
the negotiations and covered by the agreements with the Intervenor
has remained virtually unchanged since the inception of the bargain-
Company. Although the St . Paul branch of The Walman Optical Company, also a party
herein , was included in the past bargaining history described infra, that branch is not
among the separate units sought by the Petitioner.
4 There are three other similar concerns situated in Minneapolis and one other such
company located in St. Paul.
5 Until recently, the Employers ' labor relations representative signed the agreements
without prior submission of copies thereof to the Employers . In the last few years, how-
ever, he has transmltted copies of tentative drafts to the Employers for their approval
before execution of the final contracts.
Although the preamble of the most recent agreement between the Intervenor and the
Employers , effective June 1, 1948 , indicates that the contract is severally made , the joint
nature of the Employers' obligation is demonstrated by such terms as : (1) the reference
throughout the agreement to the entire group of participating companies as the "Em-
ployer" ; (2) the provision in Article XIV for the submission of any dispute concerning
the contract, which cannot be settled by negotiation, to a "Board of Arbitration composed
of two ( 2) representatives of the Union , two (2 ) representatives of the Employer, and a
fifth neutral member to be named by the four thus selected" ; and (3 ) the provision in
Article XV for the automatic , renewal of the agreement on June 1, 1949 , and yearly there-,
after, "unless written notice is given by either party . . ( Emphasis supplied.)
JOHNSON OPTICAL COMPANY, ET AL. 897
ing relationship.; And, during this entire period, the optical industry
has operated free from strikes in the Minneapolis and St. Paul area.
To counterbalance the above factors which favor the establishment
of a multiple-employer unit, reference is made to the lack of a formal
association of the Employers for collective bargaining purposes and to
the unit position of the Employers herein. However, the absence of
such association does not preclude the establishment of a multiple-
employer unit where, as here, the Employers, through an authorized
representative, have participated in bargaining on a group, rather
than an individual, basis.' Furthermore, although the Employers
have agreed with the request of the Petitioner for separate units, they
have evinced no intention of abandoning their concerted actions with
respect to labor relations a Under the circumstances, and particularly
in view of the past bargaining history, we are of the opinion that the!
Employers have demonstrated their desire to be bound by group rather
than by individual action and, therefore, that a single multiple-
employer unit of the Minneapolis and St. Paul branches of all the
Employers 8 is proper for collective bargaining purposes 1e
The sole remaining question relates to whether stockroom employees
and shop inspectors shall be included in, or excluded from, the unit.
The individuals in these classifications were admittedly excluded from
the bargaining unit established in all the past contracts. In accord-
ance with oui usual practice in like cases, we shall, therefore, exclude
them from the unit hereinafter found appropriate."
Accordingly, we find that all laboratory employees in the bench and
surface departments of the Employers at their Minneapolis and St.
Paul, Minnesota, branches, excluding errand boys, stockroom employ-
ees, inspectors , guards, watchmen, and supervisors as defined in the
6 Shortly before the war, Jeffery Optical Company ( now Johnson Optical Company)
withdrew from the relationship for a period of several months. Also , 2 years ago,
Northwest Optical Company , which is not a party herein , was included in the negotiations
for the first time , but withdrew before the final agreement was signed.
' Matter of Ward Baking Company , 78 N. L. R. B. 781 , and Matter of Dolese & Shepard'
Company, 56 N. L. R. B. 532 ; cf. Matter of Furniture Firms of Duluth, 81 N. L. R. B..
1318.
8 See Matter of Waterfront Employers Association of the Pacific Coast, 71 N. L. R. B..
80; cf . Matter of Furniture Firms of Duluth, supra.
Including the Minneapolis branch of each Employer and the St . Paul branches of
American Optical Company , Riggs Optical Company, and The walman Optical Company.
10 Cf. Matter of Rayonier Incorporated, 52 N. L . R. B. 1269. See also Matter of Ward'
Baking Company , supra, and Matter of Dolese & Shepard Company , supra.
While such unit is more comprehensive than that sought by the Petitioner, the record:
shows that the Petitioner has an adequate showing 9f interest in this larger unit, andi
that the Petitioner desires to participate in an election among the employees therein..
Accordingly, we shall direct an election in the more comprehensive unit hereinafter foundl
appropriate. Matter of Raleigh Coca-Cola Bottling Works, 80 N. L. R. B. 768 , and Matter
of J. S. Abercrombie Company, 77 N. L. R. B. 712.
"Matter of Laurel Textiles . Inc., 80 N. L. R. B. 262 , and Matter of The Canton : Drop
Forging & Mfg . Co., 71 N. L. R. B. 923.
898 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Act," constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION 13
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining with the Employers, an election by secret
ballot shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later than 30 days
from the date of this Direction, under the direction and supervision of
the Regional Director for the Region in which this case was heard, and
subject to Sections 203.61 and 203.62 of National Labor Relations
Board Rules and Regulations, among the employees in the unit found
appropriate in paragraph numbered 4, above, who were employed
during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of this
Direction of Election, including employees who did not work during
said pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation or temporarily
laid off, but excluding those employees who have since quit or been
discharged for cause and have not been rehired or reinstated prior to
the date of the election, and also excluding employees on strike who
are not entitled to reinstatement, to determine whether they desire to
be represented, for purposes of collective bargaining, by United Opti-
cal and Instrument Workers of America, CIO, or by Twin City Opti-
cal Workers Union, Local No. 20604, AFL, or by neither.
12 The Employers employ individuals classified as "working foremen" whose status is
not clear from the record . We shall , therefore , make no determination as to their inclusion
in the unit at this time . If they possess supervisory powers within the meaning of the
Act, they are to be excluded from the unit ; otherwise , they are to be included . See Matter
of The American News Company, Inc ., 77 N. L . R. B. 1036.
1a Any participant in the election directed herein may , upon its prompt request to, and
approval thereof by, the Regional Director , have its name removed from the ballot.