Long Transportation Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 6, 1970

181 N.L.R.B. 7 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

LONG TRANSPORTATION COMPANY 7
Long Transportation Company and Office and
Professional Employees' International Union,
Local 10, AFL-CIO, Petitioner , and Local 299,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America , Ind., Intervenor . Case 7-RC-9533
February 6, 1970
DECISION ON REVIEW AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
BY MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN, AND JENKINS
On September 17, 1969, the Regional Director for
Region 7 issued his Decision and Order in the
above-entitled proceeding, in which he dismissed the
petition on the ground of a contract bar. Thereafter,
in accordance with Section 102.67 of the National
Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations, the
Petitioner filed a timely request for review of the
Regional Director's Decision, contending, inter alia,
that there is no contract bar since there is no
probative evidence in the record to show that
Intervenor represented a majority of the employees
in the appropriate unit or that the Employer verified
the Intervenor's claim of majority status.
On October 29, 1969, the National Labor
Relations Board by telegraphic order granted the
request for review.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the entire record in this
case with respect to the issues under review and
makes the following findings:
The Employer is a common carrier engaged in
rendering truck freight services from its terminal
located at 3755 Central Street, Detroit, Michigan.
Certain of its employees not here involved, are
represented by the Intervenor in a National Master
Freight Agreement and the Central States Area
Local Cartage Supplemental Agreement. The
Petitioner seeks an election among approximately 27
unrepresented office clerical employees employed at
this location. The Intervenor's contract bar defense
to the petition is based on the contention that the
Master Agreement has been extended by its terms
to cover the involved employees and in any event
there has been oral recognition of the Intervenor for
these employees, within the meaning of Keller, 157
NLRB 583.
Article 2, section 3, at p. 4 of this Master
Agreement, dealing with "Non-Covered Units,"
provides as follows:
The agreement shall not be applicable to those
operations of the Employer where the employees
are covered by a collective bargaining agreement
with a Union not signatory to this agreement, or
to those employees who have not designated a
signatory Union as their collective bargaining
agent. At such time as a majority of such
employees in an appropriate bargaining unit
designate, as evidenced by a card check, a
signatory union as their collective bargaining
agent, they shall automatically be covered by the
Agreement and applicable Supplemental
Agreements. In such cases the parties may by
mutual agreement work out a wage and hour
schedule, subject to Joint Area Committee
approval. [Emphasis supplied.] The provisions of
the Agreement shall apply to all accretions to the
bargaining unit, including but not limited to,
newly established or acquired terminals, and
consolidations of terminals.
The record reflects that on May 15, 1969, the
Intervenor sent a telegram to the Employer claiming
that it represented a majority of Long's office
employees and demanding recognition. The telegram
also requested that Long contact the Intervenor no
later than Monday, May 19, 1969, to make
arrangements for a meeting for the purpose of
verifying the majority status. It appears that
approximately 2 weeks later, Employer's president
and its attorney met with a representative of the
Intervenor and extended oral recognition.
The Regional Director concluded on these facts,
that the Employer appears to have extended
recognition to the Intervenor in good faith on the
basis of a previously obtained majority at a time
when only that union was actively engaged in
organizing the unit employees and finds that the
Master Agreement together with the Office Workers
Supplemental Agreement constitutes a bar to the
current petition.' We do not agree.
The Master Agreement by its terms requires as a
condition of extension of its terms to noncovered
units such as the one involved herein, that the
majority status of the signatory union in such a unit
be "evidenced by a card check." The record herein
fails to establish that the condition was ever met.
Accordingly, the purported extension of the Master
Agreement can not be recognized for contract bar
purposes. Likewise, the failure of the record to show
affirmatively that prior to the oral recognition
agreement, the Union in fact demonstrated its
majority status to the Employer, renders inoperative
oral recognition as a bar to the instant petition. See
Display Sign . Service, Inc., 180 NLRB No. 6;
Josephine Furniture Company, Inc., 172 NLRB No.
22; Sound Contractors Association, 162 NLRB 364.
In view of the above, we find that the petition was
timely filed, and that a question affecting commerce
exists concerning the representation of certain
employees of the Employer, within the meaning of
Sections 9(c)(1) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
In view of the above finding, the Regional Director did not consider
whether the Employer 's voluntary recognition of the Intervenor , in and of
itself, constitutes a bar to the petition.
181 NLRB No. 4
8 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
In accordance with the stipulation of the parties,
we find that the following employees of the
Employer constitute a unit appropriate for the
purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning
of Section 9(b) of the Act:
All office clerical employees employed by the
Employer at its Central Street Terminal including
accountants, accounts control clerks, accounts
payable clerks, bookkeepers, cartage clerks,
claims clerks, clerk typists, coding clerks,
computer operators, payroll clerks, purchasing
agents, switch board operators, but excluding all
other employees, guards, and supervisors as
defined in the Act.
[Direction of Election' omitted from publication.]
In order to assure that all eligible voters may have the opportunity to
be informed of the issues in the exercise of their statutory right to vote, all
parties to the election should have access to a list of voters and their
addresses which may be used to communicate with them . Excelsior
Underwear Inc., 156 NLRB 1236; N.L.R.B. v. Wyman-Gordon Company.
394 U.S. 759. Accordingly, it is hereby directed that an election eligibility
list containing the names and addresses of all the eligible voters, must be
filed by the Employer with the Regional Director for Region 7, within 7
days of the date of this Decision on Review 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.