Queen City Warehouses, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 22, 1948

77 N.L.R.B. 268 (N.L.R.B. 1948)

In the Matter of QUEEN CITY WAREHOUSES , INC., EMPLOYER and
LE, wIs GROSS , PETITIONER and WAREHOUSEMEN 'S LOCAL UNION No.
661 OF INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS , CHAUFFEURS,
WAREHOUSEMEN & HELPERS OF AMERICA , A. F. L., UNION
Case No. 9-RD-7.-Decided April 22, 1948
Messrs. Joseph H. Head, William A. McKenzie, and William H.
Whiting, of Cincinnati, Ohio, for the Employer.
Messrs. Robert H. Coffey and Lewis Gross, of Cincinnati, Ohio, for
the Petitioner.
Mr. Jack L. McCain, of Cincinnati, Ohio, for the Union.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
Upon a petition for decertification duly filed, hearing in this case
was held at Cincinnati, Ohio, on December 5, 1947, before Martin
Saks, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hear-
ing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations
Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
Queen City Warehouses, Inc., an Ohio corporation, is engaged in
the operation of a general merchandise warehouse in Cincinnati, Ohio.
The value of its business during a calendar year is in excess of $100,000.
Approximately 50 percent of the merchandise received by the ware-
house comes from outside the State, and approximately 50 percent of
the merchandise shipped from the warehouse is consigned to points
outside the State.
The Employer admits and we find that it is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
77 N. L. R. B., No. 35.
268
QUEEN CITY WAREHOUSES, INC. 269
II. THE PARTIES INVOLVED
The Petitioner, an employee of the Employer, asserts that the
Union is no longer the representative of the Employer's employees as
defined in Section 9 (a) of the amended Act.
The Union, a labor organization affiliated with the American Fed-
eration of Labor, has been the recognized representative of employees
of the Employer.
III. THE ALLEGED QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
Although the Union has never been certified by the Board as exclu-
sive representative of employees of the Employer, it has been a party
to closed-shop contracts with the Employer since 1942. On August
25, 1947, the Union wrote to the Employer, indicating its desire to
negotiate a contract to replace the then existing contract which was
to expire on October 311 The Employer, having reason to believe
that the Union no longer represented a majority of employees within
the unit covered by the contract, declined to bargain with the Union.
On October 23, the Employer filed a petition for investigation and
certification of representatives in Case No. 9-RM-7. On November
17, the Union called a strike at the Employer's plant. On November
25, the original petition was filed in this decertification proceeding.
On November 26, two representatives of the Teamsters Central
Council approached the Employer for the purpose of settling the
strike. The Employer was willing to bargain with the Union for that
purpose.
On November 28, the Employer and the Union held a conference,
at which time the Union submitted a contract proposal. The Union
indicated its readiness to execute a contract on the conditions: (1)
that its members approve the contract and (2) that the employees
withdraw the instant petition. The Employer took the position that
it would bargain with the Union and sign a contract, subject to a
Board election to determine the question of the Union's majority
status; that if the Union won an election, the contract would run for
1 year; but that, if it lost, the contract was to be terminated. The
conference ended without agreement as to the contract.
On December 1, an amended petition was filed in this decertification
proceeding,2 and a Notice of Hearing on the amended petition was
issued. The next day, the Employer withdrew its petition in Case
No. 9-RM-7.
' None of the parties contends that the contract is a bar to this proceeding.
' The original petition in this proceeding was filed on November 25 by Ralph H. Coffey.
The amended petition was filed by another employee, one Lewis Gross, on December 1,
apparently because of the Union's claim that Coffey was a supervisor.
270 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Section 9 (c) (1) (A) (ii), under which the petition and amended
petition were filed, provides that a petition for decertification "assert
that the individual or labor organization , which has been certified or
is being currently recognized by their employer as the bargaining
representative , is no longer a representative as defined in Section
9 (a)." [Italics supplied.] In the instant case, as noted above,
(1) the Union was never certified ; and (2) the Employer , at the time
the petition was filed, and also presently , refuses to grant unqualified
recognition in the absence of proof of a majority. As neither of the
requisites prescribed by Section 9 (c) (1) (A ) ( ii) is present in this
case, it is clear that the Board is not empowered by the Act to entertain
a decertification petition at this time . Accordingly , we shall dismiss
the instant petition . The dismissal , however, is without prejudice to
the filing of an appropriate petition for investigation and certifica-
tion of representatives by the Employer , or any person , or labor
organization.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the amended petition filed herein by
Lewis Gross for the decertification of Warehousemen 's Local Union
No. 661 of International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America, A. F. L., as bargaining rep-
resentative of employees of Queen City Warehouses , Inc., be, and it
hereby is , dismissed , without prejudice to the filing of an appropriate
petition for investigation and certification of representatives.
MEMBER REYNOLDS took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Order.