Pacific Outdoor Advertising Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 5, 1950

90 N.L.R.B. 106 (N.L.R.B. 1950)

In the Matter of PACIFIC OuTDooR ADVERTISING CO., EMPLOYER and
LOCAL UNION 11, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL
WORKERS, AFL, PETITIONER
Case No. 21-RC-1070.=Decided June 5, 1950
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held on March 23, 1950,
before Ben Grodsky, 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 National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Members Reynolds, Murdock, and
Styles].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer, a California corporation with offices at Los
Angeles, California, erects and maintains billboards. At the date
of the hearing, it maintained some 2,000 billboards, all of which were
located in the State of California. During the year ending Novem-
ber 30, 1949, the Employer made purchases valued at approximately
$266,000. These purchases consisted principally of office machinery
and supplies and of lumber, machinery, and other equipment used in
the construction and maintenance of billboards. An indeterminate
amount of these purchases originated outside the State.
The Employer's income, which in the year ending November 30,
1949, amounted to $2,283,000, is derived from the sale of advertising
space on its billboards. Approximately 29 percent of the Employer's
accounts, which earn about 35 percent of its income, is with clients
located outside the State of California. One-third of the posters
displayed by the Employer are shipped to it by lithographers from
points outside the State.
We find that the Employer is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the National Labor Relations. Act ,
1 See Sterling Advertising Agency, 42 NLRB 281.
90 NLRB No. 25.
106
PACIFIC OUTDOOR ADVERTISING CO. 107
2. The Petitioner and Local Number 696, Hod Carriers, Building
and Common Laborers Union of America, AFL, herein called the
Intervenor, are labor organizations claiming to represent employees
of the Employer.
3. On October 20, 1949, the Intervenor and Employer executed a
collective bargaining contract, the earliest expiration date being
August 1, 1950. Both parties to the contract urge it as a bar to
this proceeding.
The contract contains the following union-security provision :
Said Party of the First Part agrees to employ men from Local
696 and the Local Union agrees to furnish competent men to
the best of its ability. In the event the Local Union is unable,
-within twenty-four (24) hours, to supply competent men satis-
factory to the employer and meeting his requirements, the Em-
ployer shall be free to employ such other help as it may require ;
provided, that help so engaged shall make application to become
members of the Union within five (5) days of their employment,
and shall complete the said application within thirty (30) days
after their employment.
Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act permits an employer and a labor or.
ganization, under certain conditions, to make an agreement "to require
as a condition of employment membership (in the labor organization)
on or after thirtieth day following the beginning of such employment
or the effective date of such agreement, whichever is later." The
Intervenor has been certified as being authorized to make such an
agreement by virtue of an election held in accord with Section 9 (e)
(1) of the Act. However, we believe that the clear effect of the union-
security provision of the 1949 contract is to require the Employer to
give preferential treatment in the hiring of employees to members
of the Intervenor. With respect to a similar contract provision, we
have held that "Such a provision goes beyond the limited form of
union-security agreement- permitted by Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act,
and is thus illegal and no bar to the instant petition, without regard
to whether its execution was authorized by an election conducted
under Section 9 (e) of the Act." 2 It is immaterial that the contract-
ing parties in this case may have orally agreed that the preferential
hiring clause was to remain inoperative, for the very existence in the
contract of the clause acts as a restraint upon employees desiring to
refrain from union activities within the meaning of Section 7 of the
, The Hofmann Packing Co., Inc., 87 NLRB 601. See Aeroil Products Company, Inc.,
86 NLRB 629, and cases cited.
108 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Act.3 Accordingly, as the contract contains an illegal preferential
hiring clause, we find that it is not a bar to this proceeding.
The Intervenor further contends that this case represents a juris-
dictional dispute between two unions of the same parent body, and
that it should not therefore be processed by the Board. We find
no merit to this contention for it does not appear upon the record
that the dispute could be resolved without resort to the administrative
processes of the Act.
The Petitioner seeks a unit of all construction electricians and light.
checkers in the electrical construction and service departments. The
Intervenor and Employer contend that this unit is inappropriate on
the ground that it is not a true craft unit and that the only appro-
priate unit is the over-all unit which has been represented by the
Intervenor for 12 or 13 years.
As indicated above, the Employer's operations are restricted solely
to construction and maintenance of billboards. Most, if not all, of
these sighs are electrically equipped for night display purposes. The
electricians involved herein install or, if the sign is being torn down,
dismantle this electrical equipment. Installation, which is the most
important work performed by the electricians involves. wiring signs
and then running overhead or underground conduits from the power
sources to the signs. The light checkers, who comprise 50 percent
of the six-man unit sought by the Petitioner, perform only the routine
night time chore of checking the functioning of bulbs and fuses qn
signs.
When construction or dismantling work is slack, the electricians are
detailed to other assignments, some • of which, are nonelectrical in
nature. The electricians and light checkers do not have.a,foreman
of their own,.but are like other construction, maintenance, and service
employees under the supervision of the Employer's, general, foreman.'
Nor do the electricians and light checkers have a separate work shop
or department. In addition it does not appear that the Employer
has an apprentice training program or.that it requires that the elec-
trical employees it hires be licensed or highly skilled. , The light
checkers are not required to have any electrical experience whatsoever.
We find that the construction electricians and light checkers are not
craft electricians such as. we normally find may constitute separate
units despite their inclusion in the past in broader bargaining units 4,
?Hazel-Atlas Class Company, et at., 85 NLRB 1305.
See Bunker Hill and Sullivan Mining and Concentrating Company , et al., 89-'NLRB 243.'
PACIFIC OUTDOOR ADVERTISING CO. 109
Accordingly, we find that no question affecting commerce exists con-
cerning the representation of employees of the Employer within the
meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
We shall therefore dismiss the petition.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations
Board hereby orders that the petition herein be, and it hereby is,
dismissed.