Nathan Warren & Sons, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 30, 1956

116 N.L.R.B. 1662 (N.L.R.B. 1956)

1662 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Nathan Warren & Sons, Inc., Petitioner and Local Union No. 64,
Bakery, Dairy, Food , Beverage and Miscellaneous Drivers, Ad-
vance Salesmen , Warehousemen and Helpers , International
Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
Helpers of America , AFL-CIO. Cases Nos. 1-RM-229 and 1-RC-
3805. November 30,1956
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed by the Employer under Section 9 (c) of
the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held in Case No.
1-RM-229, before Herbert Watterson, 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. 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.
On December 13, 1954, in Case No. 1-RC-3805, the Board certified
the Union as the exclusive representative of the Employer's employees.
Thereafter, the parties entered into a bargaining agreement which ter-
minated on December 13, 1955, upon notice duly given by the Union.
The parties then engaged in contract negotiations until May 24, 1956,
when the Employer advised the Union that it no longer recognized
the Union as the representative of its employees. On May 25, 1956,
the Employer filed a petition in Case No. 1-RM-229 for an election in
the certified unit. On May 28, 1956, the Union called a strike, at
which time the Employer employed 20 or 21 employees in the unit, all
of whom joined the strike. At the time of the hearing, which was
held on August 2, 1956, the Employer employed 10 employees in the
unit, none of whom was employed by the Employer at the time strike
was called on May 25, 1956. The Employer asserts that the replace-
ment employees are all permanent employees, and this assertion is not
disputed by the Union. The Union did not otherwise charge, and
does not now contend, that the strike which began on May 25 was an
,unfair labor practice strike.
At the hearing and in a brief filed with the Board, the Union stated
that it had never "asserted a claim" to represent the "present" comple-
ment of the Employer's employees. Accordingly, the Union would
1 For the purposes of this Decision , Cases Nos . 1-RC-3085 and 1-RM-229 are hereby
consolidated.
116 NLRB No. 245.
CENTRAL MUTUAL TELEPHONE COMPANY, INC. 1663
have the Board dismiss the petition on the ground that no question
concerning representation exists.
However, as previously stated, the Union was certified in December
1954 as the exclusive representative of the Employer's employees.
The Board's certification of the Union served to designate the Union
as the representative not only of those employees who were in the
unit at the time of the certification, but also of those persons whose
subsequent employment placed them within the unit regardless of their
specific identity. So long as the Union's certification continues in
effect, the Union, under established Board doctrine, is presumed to re-
tain its status as the majority representative of the employees in the
unit in question.2 Accordingly, in these circumstances, the fact that
the Union has not asserted its specific claim for the present comple-
ment of employees is not determinative.
What is determinative is the fact that the Union has stated both at
the hearing and in its brief that it "represents none of those whom the
Employer regards as its permanent employees." We construe this
statement to mean that the Union no longer is interested in represent-
ing the employees in the unit for which it was certified, and that thus
the Union has disavowed its claim to majority status. For this rea-
son, we find, in agreement with the Union's contention, that there now
exists no question concerning the representation of the Employer's
employees. Accordingly, we shall dismiss the petition filed in Case
No. 1-RM-229.3 By a like token, in view of the Union's disavowal of
its status as majority representative, it is evident that it would be in-
consistent with good practice to permit the Union's 1954 certification
to remain in existence. Our order herein shall therefore also revoke
the certification that was granted the Union in Case No. 1-RC-3805.
[The Board dismissed the petition in Case No. 1-RM-229 and re-
voked the certification of December 13, 1954, in Case No. 1-RC-3805.]
2 See, for example , United States Gypsum Company, 90 NLRB 964, 965; Celanese Corpo.
ration of America, 95 NLRB 664, 672.
3 Crtfn Hosiery Miiis , Inc., 83 NLRB 1240.
Central Mutual Telephone Company, Inc.' and Communications
Workers of America, AFL-CIO, Petitioner . Case No. 5-BC-
1685. November 30,1956
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 Sidney Smith, hear-
ing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are
free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
I The Employer's name appears as amended of the hearing.
116 NLRB No. 244.