Stamford Wall Paper, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 3, 1951

92 N.L.R.B. 1173 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

In the Matter of STAMFORD WALL PAPER, INC., EMPLOYER and CHARLES
G1MKOWSKI, PETITIONER
Case No. 2-RD-108.-Decided January 3,1951
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 Lloyd S. Greenidge, hear..
ing 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 Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-mem-
ber panel [Members Houston, Reynolds, and Styles].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board Ands:
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. The question concerning representation :
The Petitioner, an employee of the Employer, seeks to decertify
Sub-Local No. 6, United Wall Paper Craftsmen of North America,
AFL, alleging that Sub-Local No. 6 is currently recognized by the
Employer, but is no longer a representative of the employees of the
Employer, designated in the petition. United Wall Paper Crafts-
men of North America, AFL, hereinafter called the Intervenor,' con-
tends (1) that its contract with the Employer is a bar to this proceed-
ing and (2) that, in view of the Employer's participation in
multiemployer bargaining, the single-employer unit in which the
decertification election is sought is not appropriate.
The Employer is a wall paper manufacturer with its principal place
of business in Stamford, Connecticut. For the past 13 years the
Employer, together with a number of other wall paper manufacturers,
has bargained collectively with the Intervenor on a multiple-employer
'Neither the Intervenor nor Sub-Local No. 6 has been certified by the Board as bar-
gaining representative for the employees of the Employer.
92 NLRB No. 173.
1173
1174 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
basis. The Employer and the other members of the multiemployer
bargaining group have been represented in the foregoing bargaining
negotiations by the Labor Relations Committee of the Wall Paper
Institute , hereinafter called the Committee. Contract terms negoti-
ated by the Committee were incorporated in identical , individual
agreements executed by each member of the multiemployer group and
the Intervenor.
On. September 1, 1949, a contract for a period of 1 year, negotiated
by. the Committee , was entered into between the Employer , and the
Intervenor . On June 28 , 1950, the Committee and the Intervenor
commenced negotiations for a new contract . Petitioner filed the
instant decertification petition on August 4, 1950. On August 14,
1950, the Employer, through the Committee , gave notice to the Inter-
venor of its wish not to be represented by the Committee in further
collective bargaining negotiations . Negotiations between the Com-
mittee and the Intervenor for a new contract having reached an
impasse, the Intervenor , on September 1, 1950, called a strike in the
Employer's plant, among others. The strike was settled by an interim
agreement entered into September 9, 1950, between the Employer and
Intervenor , which extended the terms of the 1949 contract , pending
negotiation of a new contract by the Committee.
Under the terms of this interim contract , Sub-Local No. 6, as the
local of the Intervenor in the Employer 's plant shared responsibility
with the Intervenor for the presentation of grievances , and the pro-
visions of the contract bind both Sub-Local No. 6 and the Intervenor.
Under these circumstances, we find that both the Intervenor and Sub-
Local No. 6 are currently recognized by the Employer as representing
its employees. .
The Intervenor contends that the interim contract is a bar to the
instant petition . However, as the petition was filed before the execu-
tion of the interim contract, we find no merit in this contention.2
We find that a question affecting commerce exists concerning the
representation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of
Section 9 ( c). (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The appropriate unit :
The Intervenor contends that the single -employer unit in which a
decertification election is sought by the Petitioner is not appropriate,
and that a multiemployer unit comprising the employees of all the
employers who have heretofore been represented by the Committee in
joint bargaining is alone appropriate.
2 Sprague Electric Company, 81 NLRB 410.
STAMFORD WALL PAPER, INC. 1175
In support of this contention the Intervenor cites the history of col-
lective bargaining on a multiple-employer basis, and the fact that in
the current interim agreement the Employer agreed to be bound by
such contract as might be negotiated between the Intervenor' and the
Committee.3 The Intervenor contends also that Section 31 (d) of the
1949 contract precludes the Employer from withdrawing from the
multiemployer group.
On the other hand, the Employer and the Petitioner contends that the
former has manifested a desire to pursue an individual course in its
labor relations. The Employer cites the notice given the Intervenor
on August 14, 1950, that the Committee no longer represented it, and
the fact that the Employer, and not the Committee, negotiated the
interim agreement. The Employer further contends that the interim
agreement, even if regarded as inconsistent with a desire to pursue an
individual course of bargaining, is temporary in nature.
Section 31 (d) of the 1949 contract provides that contract proposals
for the ensuing contract period shall be submitted at a bargaining
meeting to be held on June 28, 1950, or not later than 5 days thereafter,
except that proposals may be submitted at a later date by consent of
the other party.' The Employer's intention to withdraw from multi-
tim.ployer bargaining was not conveyed to the Intervenor until August
14, 1950.
The Intervenor contends that the withdrawal of a party to the con-
tract from group bargaining is a "contract proposal"; and that the
Employer, having failed to give timely notice of its intent to with-
draw, is now barred from withdrawing. We find no merit in. this
contention. There is nothing in the contract specifically requiring
that any party give notice of an intention to withdraw from Inul.tiem-
Sections 2 and 3 of the interim agreement state :
2) The Standard Form of Union Contract in effect between the Employer and the
[International ] Union for the 1949-50 contract period in all its other terms is
extended temporarily pending negotiations by and between the Employers' Committee
on Labor Relations for the Wall Paper Manufacturing Industry and the [International]
Union.
3) The contract to be negotiated by and between said Employers ' Committee
and the Union. will be inaugurated by this Employer on the date that such contract
is executed.
4 Section 31 ( d) states:
On June 28 , 1950 , or within five days thereafter a joint meeting shall be held by
and between a representative of the wall Paper Institute Labor Relations Committee
and a representative of the United Wall Paper Craftsmen and Workers of North
America for the purpose of the mutual submission of proposals . At such meeting the
representatives of the parties hereto shall physically deliver each to the other a
written schedule of the contract proposals to be negotiated for the period subsequent
to the following August 31. Contract proposals for the ensuing contract period may
not be submitted after the above described meeting except by consent of the other party.
1176 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ployer bargaining. We construe the term "contract proposals" in
Section 31 (d) to refer. only to proposals relating to substantive pro-
visions of the contract, and not to the identity of .the Employer's bar-
gaining representative. We therefore find that the Employer did not
forfeit its right to withdraw from multiemployer bargaining by fail-
ing to give timely notice to the Intervenor of its desire to withdraw.5
The Employer, as already stated, manifested its intention on August
14, 1950,•to pursue an individual course of bargaining and manifested
a like intention at the hearing and in its brief. Although the interim
agreement extends the terms of the 1949 contract, which was negotiated
by the Committee, the interim agreement itself was negotiated and
signed . by the Employer, acting on its own behalf.6 Moreover,
although the interim contract binds the Employer to adopt any future
agreement negotiated by the Committee, it does not bind-the Employer
to bargain through the Committee. The Board has consistently held
that the adoption by an employer of contracts negotiated by a multi-
employer group does not, in itself, justify treating the -employer's
employees as part of the multiemployer trait. It is necessary, in
addition, that such employer participate in the group negotiations,
either personally or through an. authorized representative., There
is no evidence of such participation by the Employer since August 14,
1950. Absent such evidence, we will give effect to the Employer's
expressed desire to pursue an individual course'in its labor relations,
despite a prior history of multiemployer bargaining.
We find that all employees at the Employer's Stamford, Connecticut,
plant, excluding office and clerical employees, professional employees,
engravers, watchmen, and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute
a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act." -
5In any event, the Intervenor' s contention that under Section 31 (d) of the 1949 con-
tract the Employer's withdrawal from group bargaining was legally ineffective is difficult
to reconcile with the Intervenor' s later conduct in bargaining directly with the Employer
for the interim . contract of September 9, 1950. Under Section 31 (d), as construed by
the Intervenor, such conduct may well constitute a manifestation of the Intervenor's
consent to the Employer's withdrawal from group bargaining.
8 In this respect the instant case is distinguishable from Engineering Metal Products
Corporation, 92 NLRB No. 140, where the Board refused to give effect to an employer's
withdrawal from multiemployer bargaining during the term of a contract negotiated by the
mnultiemployer group for the employer.
, Associated Shoe Industries of Southeastern Massachusetts, 81 NLRB 224, 229. See
also, Pacific Metals Company , Ltd., et al., 91. NLRB 823 , in which the Board held that
an agreement between individual employers and the union bargaining with other employers
through an association, in which the former employers agreed in advance to be bound
by any contract negotiated by the group, is not in itself sufficient evidence of participation
in joint bargaining to warrant including these employers in a multiemployer unit.
8 There was no dispute as to the internal composition of the unit.
STAMFORD WALL PAPER, INC. 1177
[Text of Direction of Election 9 omitted from publication in this
volume.]
9 Although the Intervenor was not named in the petition ( which refers only to its
Sub-Local No. 6), we place both the Intervenor and Sub-Local No. 6 on the ballot as one
choice. Both organizations , as already indicated , are currently recognized by the Em-
ployer as representing its employees . As Sub-Local No. 6 has not complied with the filing
requirements in Section 9 of the Act, if the majority of the employees vote for the labor
organizations named on the ballot, we will certify only , the arithmetical results of the
election , unless Sub -Local No. 6 has in the meantime complied with Section 9 (f), (g),
and (h ). In that event , we will certify both unions jointly.
929979-51-vol. 92 -76