Overhead Door Co. of Modesto

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 17, 1969

178 N.L.R.B. 481 (N.L.R.B. 1969)

OVERHEAD DOOR COMPANY OF NIODESTO
Ora Skiles , Jr., d/b /a Overhead Door Company of
Modesto and United Brotherhood of Carpenters
and Joiners of America , AFL-CIO, Local No.
1235. Case 20-RM-l 157
September 17, 1969
DLCISION AND DIRECFION OF
ELECTION
BY MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN, AND ZAGORIA
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of
the National Labor Relations Act, as amended,
hearings were held before Hearing Officers Donald
G Twohcy, Edward S. Kaplan, and John H. Immel.
Following the hearings, and pursuant to Section
102.67 of the National Labor Relations Board Rules
and Regulations, Series 8, as amended. and by
direction of the Regional Director for Region 20.
this case was transferred to the National Labor
Relations Board for decision. Briefs hake been
timely filed by the Employer-Petitioner and the
Union.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a
three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the hearing Officers'
rulings made at the hearings and finds that they are
free from prejudicial error. They are hereby
affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, including the
briefs filed herein, the Board finds:
1. Overhead Door Company of Modesto, herein
referred to as Overhead or the Employer, is solely
owned by Ora Skiles, Jr., who is also sole proprietor
of Pacific Glass Co. and the primary and controlling
stockholder of Sky Wolf Industries, Inc d/b/a
Pacific Insulation. The Employer is engaged in the
supplying and installation of garage doors in
residential and commercial buildings. During
calendar year 1968, the, Employer received
shipments of goods from outside the State of
California %alued in excess of $50,000.00. The Board
is satisfied that the Employer is engaged in
commerce within the meaning of the Act, and that it
will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert
jurisdiction herein.'
2. The labor organization involved herein claims
to represent certain employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists
concerning the representation of certain employees
of the Employer within the meaning of Section
9(c)( 1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
'Moreover , the combined total gross receipts of the three above-named
companies during calendar year 1968 were in excess of S500,000, enough to
satisfy the Board ' s jurisdictional standards if it were necessary to consider
those grounds
481
The Union contends that it has a current
collective-bargaining agreement with the Employer
that is a bar to election herein. The Employer
contends that it has not entered into, nor authorized
anyone to enter into on its behalf, any
collective-bargaining agreement.
Overhead employs three carpenters. Punchochar,
who was a union member, was hired by the
Lmplotier in December 1967. Pursuant to a private
agreement with him at that time. the Employer has
since made monthly payments to the Union trust
funds on behalf of this employee. No payments have
been made by the Employer for any other employee,
past or present.
In February 1969, the Union grieved to the
Employer for failure to make proper payments to
the trust funds for all his employees, as allegedly
required under the contract it claimed was in force
and effect. fhe Employer denied the existence of
such an agreement and filed the instant petition
The Union submitted in evidence a copy of the
purported agreement, dated March I, 1968. upon
which appears the signature of Paul Cassle for the
Employer. The Employer contends that Cassle was
no more than its sales representative, and had no
authority to act for it in labor matters The
Employer contends rather that Cassle was requested
to speak informally to the Union business agent.
and obtain the Union's permission to use
Punchochar and to pay his trust funds obligations.
Cassle testified that he not only had been told to
sign for the Employer. but that he informed Skiles
that he had signed an agreement with the Union on
behalf of the Employer. lie further testified that he
ga%e Skiles a copy of the agreement signed by the
Union alone. Skiles testified that Cassle approached
him with a copy of an agreement signed by the
Union, and requested that he sign it Skiles refused
to do so, and heard no more of the matter until the
Union grieved, almost a year later. Skiles further
testified that he told Cassle he was unable to sign
any contract at that time in any event because he
was still bound by a contract with the National
Association of Independent Unions (NAIU).Z
In view of the conflicting testimony of Cassle and
Skiles, the Union's long delay between the time the
purported contract began and the demand that the
employer honor the contract, and the fact that the
employees have nc^er had the opportunity to vote as
to whether or not they wished to he represented by
the Union. we are of the opinion, that an election
will serve the best interest of all parties. and is
necessary to effectuate the purposes of the Act.
Accordingly, we shall direct that an election be held
among the employees in the unit hereinbelow found
appropriate.
The contract referred to had originally been executed on March 16,
1964, and presumably automatically renewed on March 16, 1967, to run
through March 16, 1968, when it presumably ended The NAIU is now
defunct, and no one contends it is still a party to any contract that should
bar the instant petition
178 NLRB No 67
482 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
4. The parties agree, and we find, that the
following employees constitute a unit appropriate
for the purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act:
All carpenters emplo-yed by the Employer, Ora
Skiles. Jr., d/b/a Overhead Door Company of
Modesto, California, excluding all other employees,
guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act
[Direction of Election' omitted from publication.]
'in order to assure that all eheible voters ma', have the opportunity to
be informed of the issues in the exercise of then statutory right to vote, all
parties to the election should have access to a list of voters and their
addresses which may be used to communicate with them Excelsior
Underwear Inc, 156 NLRB 1236, N L R B v Wyman-Gordon Company.
394 U S 759 Accordingly, it is hereby directed that an election eligibility
list, containing the, names and addresses of all the eligible voters, must be
tiled b} the Employer with the Regional Director for Region 20 within 7
days of the date of this Decision and Direction of Election Be Regional
Director shall make the list available to all parties to the election No
extension of time to file this list shall 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
objections are tiled