Mar-Jac Poultry Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 2, 1962

136 N.L.R.B. 785 (N.L.R.B. 1962)

MAR-JAC POULTRY COMPANY, INC. 785
Retail Clerks Union, or its employees to accept or select the Retail
Clerks Union as their collective-bargaining representative, for a
period of 1 year from August 8, 1961.
WE WILL NOT picket, or cause to be picketed, or threaten to
picket, Milo Ames and Ralph C. Whittle, d/b/a Ames IGA Food-
liner, Spokane, Washington, where an object thereof is to force
or require Ames IGA Foodliner to recognize or bargain collec-
tively with the Retail Clerks Union, or its employees to accept or
select the Retail Clerks Union as their collective-bargaining repre-
sentative, where a valid election which the Retail Clerks Union
did not win has been conducted by the National Labor Relations
Board among the employees of Ames IGA Foodliner, within the
preceding 12 months.
RETAIL CLERKS INTERNATIONAL Associ-
ATION, LOCAL 1439, AFL-CIO,
Labor Organization.
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
SPOKANE LABOR COUNCIL,
Labor Organization.
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered , defaced, or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional
Office, 327 Logan Building, 500 Union Street, Seattle, Washington,
Telephone Number Mutual 2-2300, Extension 553, if they have any
question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions.
Mar-Jac Poultry Company, Inc.' and Local 454, Amalgamated
Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL-
CIO. Case No. 10-RM-311. April 2, 1962
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Kathryn M. Rossback, hear-
ing officer . The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are
free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
I The name of the Employer -Petitioner appears as amended at the hearing.
136 NLRB No. 73.
786 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain em-
ployees 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:
Mar-Jac Poultry Company, Inc., herein called the Employer, is
engaged in the processing and marketing of poultry in Gainesville,
Georgia. It is the successor corporation to McKibbon Bros. d/b/a
Mar-Jac Poultry Company which sold its equipment and leased its
property to the Employer on February 1, 1960. Prior to this sale,
Local 454 had been certified as the bargaining representative of the
employees of McKibbon Bros. on November 17, 1959.' The present
petition was filed by the Employer on March 29, 1961. Local 454 has
moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that no question con-
cerning representation now exists.
The record shows that Local 454 requested the Petitioner to bargain
on March 1, 1960. On June 8, 1960, Local 454 filed an unfair labor
practice charge and on July 18, 1960, a complaint was issued alleging
violations of Section 8(a) (1) and (5) of the Act. On August 9, 1960,
a settlement agreement was entered into in which the Petitioner
agreed to bargain in good faith with Local 454. On November 7, 1960,
the Regional Director issued a letter of compliance.
During a period beginning after the settlement agreement in
August 1960 until February 1961, Petitioner and Local 454 held eight
bargaining sessions at which considerable progress was made toward
the negotiation of a collective-bargaining agreement. Another ses-
sion was scheduled for February 2 but the Petitioner did not attend.
On February 27, Local 454 filed an unfair labor practice charge
against the Petitioner and on March 29 the Regional Director dis-
missed the charge. On the same date the Petitioner filed the present
petition 3
One of the purposes of Section 9(c) (3) of the Act, which bars a
petition filed within 12 months from the date of the last election, is
to insure the parties a reasonable time in which to bargain without
outside interference or pressure, such as a rival petition. In accord-
ance with this purpose, the Board has, with judicial approval,
adopted a rule requiring that, absent unusual circumstances, an em-
ployer will be required to honor a certification for a period of 1 year .4
Among the reasons supporting the adoption of this rule is to give a
certified union "ample time for carrying out its mandate" and to
prevent an employer from knowing that "if he dillydallies or subtly
2 The unit was stipulated between the parties
3An RD petition was filed on February 8, 1961 (Case No 10-RD-256), which was
withdrawn without prejudice on March 20
4 Ray Brooks v. N.L R B., 348 U.S. 96, 101-103.
LOCAL UNION 41, SHEET METAL WORKERS' ASSN., ETC. 787
undermines, union strength" he may erode that strength and relieve
himself of his duty to bargain.5
In the case before us the employer has bargained with the certified
union for only 6 months. It has, largely through its refusal to bar-
gain, taken from the Union a substantial part of the period when
Unions are generally at their greatest strength-the 1-year period
immediately following the certification. Thus to permit the Em-
ployer now to obtain an election would be to allow it to take ad-
vantage of its own failure to carry out its statutory obligation,
contrary to the very reasons for the establishment of the rule that a
certification requires bargaining for at least 1 year. We shall, there-
fore, in this and in future cases revealing similar inequities, grant the
Union a period of at least 1 year of actual bargaining from the date
of the settlement agreement .6
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
MEMBERS RODGERS and LEEDOM took no part in the consideration of
the above Decision and Order.
5 Ray Brooks v. N.L.R.B., supra, p. 100.
6 To the extent that this Decision is inconsistent with The Daily Press Incorporated,
112 NLRB 1434, and similar cases, the latter are hereby overruled. Since the Petitioner,
in the instant case has already bargained for 6 months with the Union, its obligation
to bargain continues for at least an additional 6 months from the resumption of
negotiations.
Local Union No. 41, Sheet Metal Workers ' Association, AFL-
CIO, and its business agents , Roy Stringer and Joseph O'Neill
and Clyde Guinn and Sheet Metal , Air Conditioning and Roof-
ing Contractors ' Association of Central Indiana, Inc.; Iowa
Sheet Metal Contractors , Inc.; and Air Conditioning Engineer-
ing Company, Alloy Architectural Products Co., Brooks Steel
Erection , C & S Metal Equipment Co., Capitol Neon Sign Co.,
M. S. Churchman Co., Commercial Floor Covering & Acoustics
Co., General Sheet Metal Fabricators , McFerran -Kane Co.,
Inc., Skirvin Sheet Metal Co., Staley Sign Company , Taylor
Lumber & Supply Co., Town Equipment Company, Triad
Sheet Metal & Roofing Co., Clifford Van Osdol Co., Walters
Heating Co., Warfel Sheet Metal Co., Wells Sheet Metal Co.,
and Woodburn Roofing & Sheet Metal Co., Parties to the Con-
tract. Case No. 25-CB-333. April 4, 1962
DECISION AND ORDER
On July 12, 1960, Trial Examiner John F. Funke, issued his Inter-
mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, a copy of which is
136 NLRB No. 77.
641795-63-vol. 136-51