Montville Warehousing Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 18, 1966

158 N.L.R.B. 952 (N.L.R.B. 1966)

952 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Montville Warehousing Company, Inc. and Local 102, affiliated
with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America,' Petitioner Case No.
22-RC-3069 May 18,1966
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before Hearing Officer.
Howard M Golob The Hearing Officer's rulings made at the
hearing are free fiom piejudicial error and are hereby affirmed
Thereafter, the Petitioner, the Employer, and the Intervenor 2 each
filed a brief which the National Labor Relations Board a has
considered
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds
1 The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, and it will effectuate
the purpose of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein
2 The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain
employees of the Employer
3 The question concerning representation
The Intervenor and the Employer contend that the petition should
be dismissed on the grounds of contract bar
The Petitioner filed its petition on October 20, 1965, seeking to
represent all production and maintenance employees employed at the
Employer's warehouse in Montville, New Jersey, excluding office
clerical employee, guards, warehousemen, professionals, and super-
visors as defined in the Act Local 13 contends that it,3 contract with
the Employer bars an election at this time The International and
Locals 62 and 88 also claim the benefit of Local 13's contract, but
only the International wishes to appear on the ballot The Petitioner
urges the Board to reject these contentions, asserting, inter alga, that
Local 13 has abandoned all interest in the employees involved and
that neither the International nor Locals 62 and 88 have an interest
in Local 13's contract that is recognizable by law
On April 13, 1960, International Brotherhood of Bookbinders was
certified as the collective-bargaining representative at the Western
Printing and Lithographing plant in Newburgh, New York The
plant did all the warehousing for Dell Publishing Company The
employees in the bargaining unit were engaged in order processing,
i Petitioner's name appears as amended at the hearing
2 International Brotherhood of Bookbinders , AFL-CIO and Its Bookbinders Local No
13, Bookbinders Local No 62 , and Bindery Women 's Local No 88 were permitted to inter
vene at the hearing on the basis of a contractual interest in the employees involved
$ 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 McCulloch and
Members Fanning and Jenkins]
158 NLRB No 93
MONTVILLE WAREHOUSING COMPANY, INC 953
order picking, packing, and shipping In the winter of 1960, Dell
Distributing, Inc, a wholly owned subsidiary of Dell Publishing
Company, took over operations and on December 1, 1960, signed a
collective-bargaining agreement On the Union's side the contract
was negotiated and signed by representatives of the International,
Local Union No 13, and Newburgh Chapel of Local No 13 On
December 1, 1962, Dell Distributing, Inc, entered into a second con-
tract effective to December 1, 1965, with provision for automatic
annual renewal The contract was negotiated and signed by Local
Union No 13, and by Newburgh Chapel No 13 The International
did not participate in the actual negotiations and did not sign the
contract
From December 1964 to April 1965, the Employer held meetings
with the International to discuss the transfer of warehousing opera-
tions from Newburgh to a new plant in Montville, New Jersey It
also met with Locals 62 and 88 which were to assume the administra-
tion Hof Local 13's contract In April 1965, the transfer began, with
Montville Warehousing Company, Inc, a wholly owned subsidiary of
Dell Publishing Company, taking over the management of the ware-
house from Dell Distributing Inc At the same time the Employer,
through the shop steward for Local 13, informed the employees that,
if the employees wished to transfer to the new plant, the Employer
would pay the cost of moving or would bus them daily between New-
burgh and Montville Of the 70 employees in the Newburgh bar-
gaining unit, 36 transferred and began commuting when operations
began on June 7, 1965, with 58 employees The Employer provided
these employees with bus transportation and paid for traveling time
After the move the employees were told that there was a legal con-
tract in force which would continue to its expiration date of Decem-
ber 1, 1965, and which would be administered by Locals 62 and 88,
The employees were not given a chance to vote on the change from
Local 13 to Locals 62 and 88, and there was no membership meeting
t o transfer the contract from Local 13 at Newburgh to Locals 62 and
88 at Montville
On July 6, 1965, the Teamsters started organizing the plant By
July 23, 1965, only four employees from the Newburgh unit were
still working at Montville Sometime between July and October the
Employer stopped providing buses and discontinued the traveling
pay At the time of the hearing on November 5, 1965, there remained
only 4 former Newburgh employees out of a unit of 85 employees
The collective-bargaining contract between the Employer and Local
13 covers employees tt the Newburgh warehouse The present pro,
ceeding involves employees at the Montville warehouse Although
mere relocation of a plant without an accompanying change in, the
954 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
character of the jobs and the functions of the employees in the con-
tract unit does not remove a contract as a bar, a precondition is that
the relocation must be accompanied by the transfer of a considerable
proportion of the employees from the old to the new plant.4 In the
present case, the number of former employees at the Newburgh unit
who have transferred permanently to Montville is insignificant.
Under these circumstances, we find that the Newburgh contract is
not a bar to these proceedings.5
Accordingly, we find that a question affecting commerce exists
concerning the representation of certain employees of the Employer
within Sections 9 (c) (1) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. 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 production and maintenance employees employed at the
Employer's warehouse in Montville, New Jersey, excluding office
clerical employees, guards, warehousemen, professionals, and
supervisors as defined in the Act.6
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] '
4 General Extrusion Company, Inc., 121 NLRB 1165 , 1167-1168.
5 In determining whether a relocation has been accompanied by the transfer of a con-
siderable portion of employees from the old to the new plant , the Board has considered
the number of these transferees at the time of the hearing as the relevant factor. See
Arrow Company, 147 NLRB 829 ; Edward Aaron Corp., 125 NLRB 840; Bowman Dairies,
123 NLRB 707.
The unit found appropriate herein is stipulated as such by all the parties to the case.
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 22 within 7 days after
the date of this Decision 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 listshall 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 objec-
tions are filed . Excelsior Underwear Inc., 156 NLRB 1236.
Mallory Plastics Company, a division of P. R. Mallory & Co.,
Inc. and Textile Workers Union of America . Cases Nos. 13-
CA-6032 and 13-RC-9739. May 18,1966
ORDER GRANTING MOTION AND CERTIFICATION OF
RESULTS OF ELECTION
On December 11, 1964, the Board issued its Decision, Order, and
Direction of Second Election in these cases,' finding that the Re-
spondent had violated Section 8(a) (1) of the Act. The Board fur-
ther found that the Respondent had not engaged in certain other
1149 NLRB 1649.
158 NLRB No. 92.