Tampa Bay Area Glazing Contractors Association, Inc., et al.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 22, 1977

228 N.L.R.B. 360 (N.L.R.B. 1977)

360 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Tampa Bay Area Glazing Contractors Association,
Inc., et al.' and Glaziers Local Union No. 1772,
International Brotherhood of Painters and Allied
Trades, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case 12-RC-5147
February 22, 1977
DECISION ON REVIEW AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
BY CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND JENKINS
On September 27, 1976, the Regional Director for
Region 12 issued a Decision and Direction of
Elections in single employer units . Thereafter on
October 9, 1976, the Petitioner filed a request for
review of the Decision and Direction of Elections.On
October 19, 1976, PPG Industries, Inc. (Tampa), and
PPG Industries, Inc. (St. Petersburg), filed a state-
ment in opposition to Petitioner's request for review.
On October 22, 1976, the Board, by telegraphic order,
granted review and stayed the elections pending
decision on review. Thereafter, the parties filed briefs
with the Board.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board considered the entire record in this case2
with respect to the issues under review and makes the
following findings:
Except for the Tampa Bay Area Glazing Contrac-
tors Association, Inc. (hereafter referred to as the
Association), the Employers named in the petition
are engaged in the construction phases of the glazing
industry in the greater Tampa-St. Petersburg-Lake-
land area of Florida. Since at least 1962 a varying
group of glazing contractors, including some of the
Employers here involved, has been represented in
contract negotiations with Local 1772 by successive
joint bargaining committees, each created on an ad
hoc basis to negotiate a specific contract. The degree
to which the group has varied from year to year is
illustrated by the fact that, of the 13 Employers
signatory to the current agreement , at most 6 have
consistently authorized a committee to bargain for
them in every negotiation since 1967.
At the end of contract negotiations, when the
bargaining parties had reached agreement, the Union
i The other employers listed in the petition are. Volunteer Glazing
Company, Inc; Silvernail Glass and Manufacturing Co ,; Sunstate Glass
Company; PPG Industries , Inc. (St . Petersburg); PPG Industries, Inc
(Tampa ); McMullen Glass , Inc ; Harmon Glass of Florida , Inc ; Central
Glass and Window , Central Glass Company, Inc., Cee Bee Glass Service,
Inc ; Capitol Glass Specialities , Inc.; American Glass Industries, Inc
Southern Window Erectors, Inc.
2 Petitioner moved to clarify its brief, stating that a reference to "8(d)
notices" should be a reference to certain letters dated July 6, 1976, sent by the
228 NLRB No. 35
and each Employer would execute a separate agree-
ment identical in its terms to the others. In addition,
other glazing contractors, who had not authorized the
committees to represent them, later adopted and
executed their own copies of the contract with Local
1772.
The Petitioner seeks a multiemployer unit of the 13
Employers who signed the 1974 collective-bargaining
agreement. The Petitioner agreed, however, to partic-
ipate in elections in single-employer units should the
Board find such units appropriate. The Regional
Director found, and the Employers agreed, that a
multiemployer unit would be inappropriate because
the collective-bargaining history between Local 1772
and the bargaining committees that represented the
varying groups of glazing contractors did not show
sufficient indication of a "clear consensual under-
standing of all parties involved that a multi-employer
unit was intended."
The Regional Director further found that even if it
could be held that the Employers had engaged in
multiemployer bargaining in the past, letters from the
Employers to the Association revoking bargaining
authority constituted timely and unequivocal notice
of intent to withdraw from a multiemployer bargain-
ing unit.3 The Regional Director further noted the
Petitioner's acknowledgment of these notices.
Petitioner contends that the long bargaining history
on a multiemployer basis supports a finding that the
Employers intended to continue to engage in such
bargaining and that the requested multiemployer unit
is therefore appropriate here. Petitioner further
contends that the notices of intent to withdraw from
the Association were ineffective for the purposes of
withdrawing from multiemployer bargaining. In this
regard, Petitioner contends that a multiemployer
bargaining arrangement exists apart from the Associ-
ation and that the Association was, in fact, never
authorized by the Employers to bargain. Petitioner
further contends that because the Employers' with-
drawal notices were addressed to the Association,
which was never authorized by the Employers to
bargain for them, the withdrawals were ineffective
and the negotiating committee is still authorized to
bargain for the Employers.
Although we agree that there is a multiemployer
bargaining history with respect to 6 or 8 of the named
Employers, we nevertheless find that the multiem-
Union's business representative to the Employers named in the petition. The
Employers opposed this motion . Both of the above-described documents
have been considered in our examination of the whole record . Inasmuch as
the intent and meaning of the documents are clear from their respective
contents, we deny Petitioner's motion.
3 Retail Associates, Inc., 120 NLRB 388, 391 (1958); The Evening News
Association, Owner and Publisher of "The Detroit News," 154 NLRB 1494
(1965).
TAMPA BAY AREA GLAZING CONTRACTORS 361
ployer unit sought is inappropriate because the
Employers gave the Union clear and timely notice of
intent to withdraw from multiemployer bargaining.
The record shows that prior to the expiration of
each collective-bargaining agreement, the Employers
who wished to be represented jointly would elect a
joint bargaining committee and delegate to the
committee the authority to bargain in the upcoming
negotiations. The delegations of authority were
limited and expired, by the terms of the delegation
agreement, within a stated period of time or upon the
negotiation of a new collective-bargaining agreement.
The delegation of bargaining authority was, there-
fore, ad hoc with respect to each contract to be
negotiated and, because self-limiting, required no
revocation to terminate the authority delegated.
The 1974 authorization agreement delegating bar-
gaining authority to a joint bargaining committee was
also self-limiting. Eleven Employers signed the au-
thorizations; two, Volunteer Glazing and Southern
Window Erectors, subsequently ratified or adopted
the agreement negotiated by the committee.
The 1974 agreement included a provision for wage
reopener discussions in 1975. Although written au-
thorizations delegating bargaining authority to the
committee for these discussions were not submitted
in evidence, the uncontradicted testimony of Ernest
M. Garrison, chairman of the negotiating committee,
reveals that the same committee that negotiated the
original agreement participated in the wage reopener
discussions.
In November 1974, between the time of the
negotiations of the 1974 contract and the commence-
ment in mid-1975 of the wage reopener discussions,
Tampa Bay Area Glazing Contractors Association,
Inc., was formed by a group of glazing contractors,
many of whom signed the 1974 contract. One of its
purposes, as set forth in its bylaws, was to bargain
collectively for those Employers who authorized it to
do so. There is no indication that the Association was
ever actually authorized by any Employer to bargain
for it. However, the fact that most of the signatories
to the 1974 agreement, including the bargaining
committee members, were members of the Associa-
tion, apparently led at least some of the Employers to
consider the bargaining committee to be a part of the
Association.4 Furthermore, the tentative agreement
produced in the wage reopener discussions was
between the Association and Local 1772 and was
signed by Garrison for the "Tampa Bay Area Glazing
Contractors Association, Inc., Bargaining Commit-
tee." And, although the union membership did not
ratify the tentative agreement, nothing in the record
indicates that the union leadership disputed or
questioned the apparent authority of the Association
to negotiate an agreement for the signatory Employ-
ers. On the other hand, all of Garrison's letters to the
Union, before and after the signing of the tentative
agreement, were signed by Garrison for the Employ-
er's negotiating committee and made no reference to
the Association.
On June 28 and 29, 1976, approximately 6 months
after the union membership rejected the tentative
agreement discussed above, and more than 60 days
prior to the expiration of the 1974 contract, the
Employers who had authorized the bargaining com-
mittee to bargain for them in 1974 sent individual
letters to the Association revoking any authority the
Association might have to bargain in their behalf with
Local 1772. Copies of this notice were sent to the
Union along with notification that each Company
desired to discontinue the existing collective-bargain-
ing agreement upon its termination date, August 31,
1976.
On June 30, 1976, a few days before he received the
above communications, Roy Mabry, the business
representative of Petitioner, sent to each Employer
letters pursuant to Section 8(d) of the Act, notifying
the Companies that the Union wished to meet and
negotiate changes in the agreement then in effect.
Upon receipt of copies of the aforementioned letters
from the Employers, Mabry sent each of them a letter
acknowledging their desire to discontinue the collec-
tive-bargaining agreement and the revocation of the
bargaining authority given to the Association. Ma-
bry's letter concluded, "It is Local 1772's purpose to
engage in good-faith collective bargaining with your
firm toward the end that we agree upon a collective-
bargaining agreement which will succeed the one
expiring on August 31, 1976."
It is well settled that the Board will find a
multiemployer unit appropriate only where employ-
ers evidence clear intent to participate in such a
bargaining arrangement .5 Here, previous agreements
signed by the Employers delegating bargaining au-
thority to the Employers' negotiating committee
clearly limited the duration of the authority dele-
gated. And, although the Employers had not explicit-
ly authorized the Association to bargain for them,
there was, as discussed above, some confusion
regarding the apparent authority of the Association
to do so. Consequently, when the Employers wished
to make clear their withdrawal from a multiemployer
bargaining arrangement, it was to the Association
that they addressed their revocation of authority. The
copies of this notice sent to the Petitioner gave
4 For example, the testimony of Joe K. Silvernail, president of Silvernad 5 See e.g., Greenhoot, Inc., 205 NLRB 250 (1973); The Kroger Co, 148
Glass & Manufacturing Co., indicates that he thought there was no NLRB 569 (1964); Francis L. Bennett and Haro/dJ Bennett, partners, d/b/a
difference between the Association and the negotiating committee . Bennett Stone Company, 139 NLRB 1422 ( 1962).
362 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Petitioner unequivocal and timely notice of such
withdrawal. It is clear from Mabry's letter of July 6
that he understood the Employers' intent to revoke
the joint bargaining authority.
Neither party disputes the principle that an employ-
er may withdraw from multiemployer bargaining if
the intent to do so is clearly communicated to the
Union in a timely and unequivocal manner. Contrary
to the contention of Petitioner, we find that such
intention was conveyed to the Union by each of the
Employers involved and that the Union understood
the clear import of the notice of withdrawal. In view
of the foregoing, we further find that the necessary
consent to participate in multiemployer bargaining
has not been established and therefore that a mul-
tiemployer unit is not appropriate here.
Accordingly, we find appropriate the following
individual units:
Unit No. 1-All employees of VOLUNTEER
GLAZING COMPANY, INC., working out of its
facility located at 13110 60th Street, North Clear-
water, Florida, employed by the Employer in the
construction glazing craft, including drivers of
glazing installation trucks and glaziers utilized to
unload glazing material at jobsites; but excluding
office clerical employees, salesmen , guards, and
supervisors as defined in the Act.
Unit No. 2-All employees of SILVERNAIL
GLASS & MANUFACTURING CO., INC.,
working out of its facility located at 2201 1st
Avenue South, St. Petersburg, Florida, employed
by the Employer in the construction glazing craft,
including drivers of glazing installation trucks and
glaziers utilized to unload glazing material at
jobsites; but excluding office clerical employees,
salesmen, guards, and supervisors as defined in
the Act.
Unit No. 3-All employees of SUNSTATE
GLASS COMPANY working out of its facility
located at 4415 Cayuga, Tampa, Florida, em-
ployed by the Employer in the construction
glazing craft, including drivers of glazing installa-
tion trucks and glaziers utilized to unload glazing
material at jobsites; but excluding office clerical
employees, salesmen, guards, and supervisors as
defined in the Act.
Unit No. 4-All employees of PPG INDUS-
TRIES, INC., working out of its facility located at
222 First Avenue South, St. Petersburg, Florida,
employed by the Employer in the construction
glazing craft, including drivers of glazing installa-
tion trucks and glaziers utilized to unload glazing
material at jobsites; but excluding office clerical
employees, salesmen, guards , and supervisors as
defined in the Act.
Unit No. 5-All employees of PPG INDUS-
TRIES, INC., working out of its facility located at
137 South Tampa Street, Tampa, Florida, em-
ployed by the Employer in the construction
glazing craft, including drivers of glazing installa-
tion trucks and glaziers utilized to unload glazing
material at jobsites; but excluding office clerical
employees, salesmen, guards, and supervisors as
defined in the Act.
Unit No. 6-All employees of McMULLEN
GLASS, INC., working out of its facility located
at 107 Hamiller, Tampa, Florida, employed by the
Employer in the construction glazing craft, includ-
ing drivers of glazing installation trucks and
glaziers utilized to unload glazing material at
jobsites; but excluding office clerical employees,
salesmen, guards, and supervisors as defined in
the Act.
Unit No. 7-All employees of HARMON GLASS
OF FLORIDA, INC., working out of its facility
located at 4780 Distribution Drive, Tampa, Flori-
da, employed by the Employer in the construction
glazing craft, including drivers of glazing installa-
tion trucks and glaziers utilized to unload glazing
material at jobsites; but excluding office clerical
employees, salesmen , guards, and supervisors as
defined in the Act.
Unit No. 8-All employees of CENTRAL
GLASS AND WINDOW working out of its
facility located at 6575 80th Avenue North,
Pinellas Park, Florida, employed by the Employer
in the construction glazing craft, including drivers
of glazing installation trucks and glaziers utilized
to unload glazing material atjobsites; but exclud-
ing office clerical employees, salesmen, guards,
and supervisors as defined in the Act.
Unit No. 9-All employees of CENTRAL
GLASS COMPANY, INC., working out of its
facility located at 302 N. Ingram, Lakeland,
Florida, employed by the Employer in the con-
struction glazing craft, including drivers of glazing
installation trucks and glaziers utilized to unload
glazing material at jobsites; but excluding office
clerical employees, salesmen, guards, and supervi-
sors as defined in the Act.
Unit No. 10-All employees of CEE BEE GLASS
SERVICE, INC., working out of its facility
located at 3661 63rd Avenue North, Pinellas Park,
Florida, employed by the Employer in the con-
TAMPA BAY AREA GLAZING CONTRACTORS
struction glazing craft, including drivers of glaz-
ing installation trucks and glaziers utilized to
unload glazing material at jobsites; but excluding
office clerical employees, salesmen , guards, and
supervisors as defined in the Act.
Unit No. 11-All employees of CAPITOL
GLASS SPECIALTIES, INC., working out of its
facility located at 3430 Cypress Street, Tampa,
Florida, employed by the Employer in the con-
struction glazing craft, including drivers of glazing
installation trucks and glaziers utilized to unload
glazing material at jobsites, but excluding office
clerical employees, salesmen , guards, and supervi-
sors as defined in the Act.
Unit No. 12-All employees of AMERICAN
GLASS INDUSTRIES, INC., working out of its
facility located at 3201 28th Street North, St.
Petersburg, Florida, employed by the Employer in
6 As the Regional Director found , there was evidence to the effect that
one or more of the Employers herein did not employ a requisite complement
of employees. The Board has held it is not empowered to certify a bargaining
representative or by other procedures require bargaining in a unit compnsing
one employee and it therefore does not direct elections in such units.
Sonoma -Mann Publishing Company, 172 NLRB 625 (1968); Teamsters Local
363
the construction glazing craft, including drivers of
glazing installation trucks and glaziers utilized to
unload glazing material at jobsites, but excluding
office clerical employees, salesmen , guards, and
supervisors as defined in the Act.
Unit No. 13-All employees of SOUTHERN
WINDOW ERECTORS, INC., working out of its
facility located at 1134 First Ave., North, St.
Petersburg, Florida, employed by the Employer in
the construction glazing craft, including drivers of
glazing installation trucks and glaziers utilized to
unload glazing material at jobsites, but excluding
office clerical employees, salesmen, guards, and
supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Direction of Elections and Excelsior footnote
omitted from publication.]
Union No. 115 (The Vila-Barr Company), 157 NLRB 588 (1966). Accordingly,
if any Employer can establish that in fact its employee complement has been
permanently decreased to one employee and it appears that such situation
will continue, a Supplemental Order shall issue deleting such Employer from
the election directed herein . Crispo Cake Cone Company, Inc, 201 NLRB 309
(1973).