Poinciana Curtains

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 16, 1950

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

In the Matter of DoIN KwoN , YOUNG MAN KWON, NELSON Y. C.
KwoN , ESTHER KWON , MARGARET PAI, AND PHILIP PAI, D/B/A
POINCIANA CURTAINS, EMPLOYER and CUSTOM UPHOLSTERERS, DRA-
,PERM & SIIADE - UNION, LOCAL No. 3, UPHOLSTERERS INTERNATIONAL
UNION, AFL, PETITIONER
Case No. 20-RC-1079.-Decided November 16, 1950
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 Harry Bamford, hear-
ing 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 Boards finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.'
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. A 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. -
A few weeks before June 1, 1950, the Employer entered into separate
bargaining contracts bearing the same date with the Petitioner and
Venetian Blind Workers Union, Local No. 2565, affiliated with Bay
Counties District Council of Carpenters and with United Brotherhood
of Carpenters & Joiners of America, AFL, herein called the Intervenor.
The Intervenor contends that its contract is a bar to this proceeding.
An examination of both contracts reveals that each of them purports
to cover overlapping classifications of the Employer's employees. In
view' of the patent ambiguity as to which contract was intended to
cover the employees for which the Petitioner is seeking certification,
it is necessary to consider the circumstances surrounding their execu-
tion.2
3 Our decision herein to assert jurisdiction is based on the fact that the Employer oper-
ates one plant in Hawaii and another here involved in California. Some integration exists
between the two enterprises. Cf. The Borden Company, Southern Division , 91 NLRB 628.
2 St. Johns River Shipbuilding Company, 52 NLRB 958 ; O. B. Andrews Company, 86
NLRB 59.
-92'NLRB No. 24.
106
POINCIANA CURTAINS 107
The record shows that in May 1950, the Employer was approached
by agents of the Petitioner and the Intervenor, each seeking to repre-
sent its seven employees. The parties agreed that the Petitioner was to
represent three of these employees and that the Intervenor was to
represent the remaining four employees. Thereafter, the Employer
signed the aforesaid contracts which were to become effective June 1,
1950. According to the. uncontradicted testimony of the Employer,
the contract with the Intervenor was not to become effective until the
employees had obtained membership in that union. The record fur-
ther shows that none of the employees ever joined the Intervenor and
that the terms of the contract were never put into effect. In view of
the fact that the Intervenor's contract has never become operative, it
is clear that it cannot constitute a bar to an election herein 3
4. The parties are in general agreement that all of the Employer's
employees other than supervisors constitute an. appropriate unit.
They are in dispute, however, as to two sewers, whom the Employer
and the Petitioner would include and the Intervenor would exclude
from the unit.
The record indicates that the Employers..operations. in making
bamboo curtains are so integrated that it utilizes its small labor pool
to the extent that any of the operations may be performed by any of
its employees if the flow of work so requires. The Intervenor presented
no evidence in support of its position that the sewers should be ex-
cluded from the bargaining unit. We shall therefore include sewers in
the unit hereinafter found appropriate.
We find that all employees of the Employer's San Francisco, Cali-
fornia, plant, including sewers; but excluding supervisors as defined
in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for collective bargaining
.within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
vol ii-ine.
MEMBER HOUSTON took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Direction of Election.
See Radio Corporation of America ( Victor Division ), 89 NLRB 1226.