Maxwell Wallpaper Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 26, 1951

93 N.L.R.B. 927 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

MAXWELL WALLPAPER COMPANY • 927
A. M. MAXWELL, D/B/A MAXWELL WALLPAPER COMPANY and WILLIAM
P. SALZMAN, PETITIONER and UNITED `VALLPAPER CRAFTSMEN AND
WORKERS OF NORTH AMERICA, AFL. Case No. 13-RD-85. March
26,1951
Decision and Direction of Election
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Irving M. Friedman,
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-mem-
ber panel [Members Houston, Murdock, and Styles].
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 Petitioner, an employee of the Employer, asserts that the
Union is no longer the bargaining representative of the Employer's
employees involved herein.
The Union is a labor organization currently recognized by the Em-
ployer as the exclusive bargaining representative of the Employer's
employees.
We find that a question affecting commerce exists concerning the
representation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of
Section 9 (c)-(1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
3. The appropriate unit :
The Union contends that the single-employer unit of the Em-
ployer's employees in which decertification is sought is not appropri-
ate because, it alleges, the Employer has participated in multiem-
ployer bargaining, and because, in any event, the Employer has
customarily adopted the collective bargaining contracts resulting from
multiemployer bargaining. The Employer asserts that it has not
participated and does not desire to participate in multiemployer bar-
gaining.
For approximately 13 years, approximately 22 employers in the
wallpaper industry have bargained collectively with the Union on a
multiple-employer basis through tho Employers' Committee on Labor
Relations of the Wallpaper Institute of America, hereinafter called the
Committee and the Institute, respectively. The standard agreement
resulting from such negotiations has been individually signed and
separately executed by the participating employers and by approxi-
' Stanislaus Implement and Hardware Company, Limited , 91 NLRB 618.
93 NLRB No. 151.
928 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
mately 10 independent employers. Although the Employer herein
has, since 1946, signed the standard agreement, at no time has it been
a member of the Committee or the Institute, participated directly or
through its authorized representatives in the joint negotiations, or
delegated its bargaining authority to the Committee or the Institute.
However, in 1948 the Employer signed a consent agreement to an in-
dustry-wide union authorization election, including employees of the
Employer 2 The last contract between the Union and the Employer
expired, along with the contracts the Union had with other employers
in the industry, in August 1950. Thereafter, all employees repre-
sented by the Union in the industry went on strike. The Employer
herein negotiated individually with the Union for the return of its
employees to work, but the negotiations were not successful. The
strike was subsequently settled by negotiations between the Union
and the Committee, and all employees, including those of the Em-
ployer herein, returned to work.
The Board has held that although an employer, as in the instant
case, has customarily adopted a standard industry contract, this does
not itself provide a sufficient basis for the inclusion of its employees
in a unit with those of other employers.3 The only indication that the
Employer herein bargained jointly is its participation in 1948 in the
union-authorization election in a multiple-employer unit. However,
the Employer thereafter negotiated individually with the Union for
an agreement to succeed the 1950 contract. Moreover, there is no
existing bargaining agreement between the Union and the Employer,
and at the hearing the Employer indicated its desire not to participate
in multiemployer bargaining.
Under the foregoing circumstances, we find that a unit confined to
the employees of the Employer is appropriate .4 We therefore find
that all craftsmen and workers of the Employer at its Hartland,
Illinois, plant, excluding office and clerical employees, guards, profes-
sional employees, and supervisors, constitute a unit appropriate for
the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9
(b) of the Act.5
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
2 Case No 13-UA-1276
3 Pacific Metals Company, Ltd, et al, 91 NLRB 696
s Pacific Metals Company, Ltd., et at, supra ; Maraud Brothers Beverage Co., et al.,
91 NLRB 409 Also of Engineering Metal Products Corporation, 92 NLRB 823.
5 The parties are in agreement as to the composition of the unit.