Metz Brewing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 29, 1952

98 N.L.R.B. 409 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

METZ BREWING COMPANY 409
METZ BREWING COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING
ENGINEERS , LOCALS 38 AND 38-A, AFL, PETITIONER
FALSTAFF BREWING CORPORATION and INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OP-
ERATING ENGINEERS , LOCALS 38 AND 38-A, AFL, PETITIONER
STORZ BREWING COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING
ENGINEERS, LOCALS 38 AND 38-A, AFL, PETITIONER. Cases Nos. 17-
RC-1203, 17-RC-1204, and 17-RC-1205. February 09, 1952
Decision and Order
Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the
National Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before
William J. Scott, 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 Houston and Styles].
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 Petitioner is a labor organization claiming to represent em-
ployees of the Employers.
3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the represen-
tation of employees of the Employers within the meaning of Section
9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, for the following
reasons:
The Petitioner seeks three separate units of all firemen, oilers, boiler
washers, and utility men,2 one for each Employer. The Intervenor,
relying on a long history of joint collective bargaining, contends that
the only appropriate unit is a single unit of this category of employees
of all the Employers.
The Employers herein are engaged principally in the manufacture
and sale of beer. The record discloses that for at least the past 12
years the Employers through their representatives have participated
in joint negotiations with the Intervenor, resulting in successive con-
tracts signed by all the Employers. Moreover, it is undisputed that
only recently both the Employer and the Intervenor refrained from
giving the requisite contractual notice of termination of their last
i International Brotherhood of Firemen and Oilers , Local No. 82, AFL, herein called the
Intervenor , was permitted to intervene in this proceeding on the basis of a current contract
with the Employers . It is immaterial whether or not the Intervenor was out-of compliance
with the filing requirements at the time of the hearing.
2 Excluding all salaried and clerical employees, production employees, oilers in the
•boiler shop , watchmen , and guards and supervisors , as defined in the Act.
98 NLRB No. 54.
410 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
agreement, thereby permitting this agreement to renew itself for
another year.3 It is thus evident that the Employers have indicated
an intention to be bound in collective bargaining by group rather
than by individual action. The fact that they have not also organized
into a formal association 4 or that each Employer handles its own em-
ployee grievances does not preclude the establishment of a multi-
employer unit.
In view of the long history of collective bargaining on a multi-
employer basis and the absence of unequivocal evidence that the em-
ployers intend to abandon their practice of bargaining jointly, we
find that the single employer units requested by the Petitioner are
inappropriate. -As the Petitioner does not seek an election in the
broader unit, we shall dismiss the petitions herein.
Order
Upon the basis of the entire record in this proceeding, the National
Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the petitions herein be,
and they hereby are, dismissed.
9 As the petitions , however , were timely flied before the operation of the automatic re-
newal clause in the Intervenor ' s contract , this proceeding is not barred.
' Abbotta Dairies, Inc., et al ., 97 NLRB 1064.
BLACKSTONE MILLS, INC.1 and TEXTILE WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA,
CIO, PETITIONER . Case No. 1-RC-2495. February -29, 1952
Decision and Order
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Robert S. Fuchs, hearing
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.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent employees
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 follow-
ing reasons:
I The petition and other formal papers were amended at the hearing to show the correct
name of the Employer.
98 NLRB No. 59.