The Stouffer Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 22, 1952

101 N.L.R.B. 1331 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

THE STOUFFER CORP. 1331
during the period of the petitioner's statutory incapacity, execute a
valid agreement which will serve as a bar. The policies of Section 9
of the Act will thus best be effectuated because labor organizations
will recognize the necessity of complying with the filing requirements
of that section before seeking recourse to the processes of the Board.
Accordingly, we find that the contract executed between the Employer
and CSPU on August 30, 1952, is a bar to a present determination
of representatives, and we shall dismiss the petition.
Order
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition herein be, and it hereby is,
dismissed.
MEMBER HOUSTON took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Order.
THE STOUI7ER CORP. and LOCAL JOINT EXECUTIVE BOARD , HOTEL &
'RESTAURANT EMPLOYEES AND BARTENDERS INTERNATIONAL UNION,
AFL , PETITIONER . Case No. 7-RC-194. December 22, 1952
Decision and Order
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before William E. Rhodes, hearing
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 Board finds :
1. The Employer contends that the Board should not exercise juris-
diction in this case. The Employer is an Ohio corporation, having
its main offices in Cleveland, Ohio. It purchases over $500,000 in
merchandise yearly, which is shipped directly it interstate commerce
to its restaurants in New York, Minneapolis, Chicago, Detroit, Cleve-
land, Pittsburgh, and Philadelphia. The two Detroit restaurants,
which are alone involved in this case, receive out-of-State shipments
in the value of more than $100,000.
Under these circumstances and upon the entire record, we find,
contrary to the Employer's contention, that the Employer's Detroit
restaurants are an integral part of a multistate enterprise, and that it
will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction in this
case.'
The Borden Company, 91 NLRB 628; Childs Company , 88 NLRB 720.
101 NLRB No. 194.
242305--53---85
1332 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent employees
of the Employer.
3. No 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, for the following reasons :
The Petitioner seeks a unit composed of employees in the two res-
taurants of the Employer located in Detroit. The Employer contends
that bargaining history on a multiemployer basis for a unit including
these employees precludes the establishment of a single-employer unit
at the present time.
Since 1941, the Employer has been a member of the Detroit Res-
taurant Guild, an association of restaurant operators in the city of
Detroit, who since that date have bargained jointly through the Guild
with the Petitioner as the representative of their employees, including
the employees in the Employer's Detroit restaurants. The Employer
desires to continue bargaining with its employees through the Guild.
Where a nonincumbent union, in the face of a multiemployer bar-
gaining history, has petitioned for a single-employer unit, but the
Employer and the contracting incumbent union have desired to con-
tinue bargaining on a multiemployer basis, the Board has found the
single-employer unit inappropriate.2 The Board has reached a like
result where an incumbent union desires a single-employer unit, but
the employer and petitioning nonincumbent union desire to continue
bargaining on the preestablished multiemployer basis.3 We can see no
reason to reach a different result where the petitioner, as in the instant
case, is an incumbent union which, after having bargained for many
years on a multiemployer basis, seeks to disrupt the multiemployer
unit. Accordingly, we deem the 10-year history of bargaining on a
multiemployer basis between the Petitioner and the Guild enough to
preclude a finding, in derogation of that history, that the single-
employer unit sought by the Petitioner is appropriate, and we shall
dismiss the petition'
Order
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition filed herein be, and it hereby
is, dismissed.
MEMBER STYLES dissenting :
I would find the Petitioner's proposed unit appropriate, and would
direct an election therein. If the Employer in the instant case had
withdrawn from multiemployer bargaining, the Board, under its exist-
2 American Writing Paper Co., 94 NLRB 1773; Abbotts Dairies, Inc., 97 NLRB 1064.
3 Belle Vernon Milk Company , 90 NLRB 717. See, also , Archie Bernstein et at., 98
NLRB 1144
4In view of our decision herein , we find it unnecessary to consider the Employer's
contention that its contract with the Petitioner is a bar.
FRYER AND STILLMAN, INC. 1333
ing policy, would have found appropriate a unit limited to the Em-
ployer's employees. For reasons stated in my dissent in Continental
Baking Co.,' I believe that the Board should likewise find such a unit
appropriate, upon the petition of the incumbent union, even though
the Employer desires to continue to bargain on a multiemployer basis.
As I pointed out at length in the Continental Baking case, the action
of my colleagues, in dismissing the petition filed in the instant case
by an incumbent union, represents a disparity in treatment which I
find it difficult to justify.
MEMBER HOUSTON took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Order.
1199 NLRB 777. The majority did not , in that case , pass upon the issue here presented
of the severability of a multiemployer unit upon the petition of the contracting or incumbent
union.
FRYER AND STILLMAN, INC. and UNITED PACKINGHOUSE WORKERS OF
AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER
LITVAK MEAT COMPANY and UNITED PACKINGHOUSE WORKERS OF AMER-
ICA, CIO, PETITIONER
SIGMAN MEAT COMPANY AND ARVADA PACKING COMPANY and UNITED
PACKINGHOUSE WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER
PEPPER PACKING COMPANY and UNITED PACKINGHOUSE WORKERS OF
AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER
ROCKY MOUNTAIN MEAT DEALERS ASSOCIATION, ET AL. and UNITED
PACKINGHOUSE WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER. Cases Nos.
30-RC-811, 30-RC-815, 30-RC-816, SO-RC--817, and 30-RC-820.
December 23, 195,
Decision , Order, and Direction of Election
Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before
Clyde F. Waers, 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 Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with these cases to a three--
member panel [Members Houston, Styles, and Peterson].
Upon the entire record in these cases, the Board finds :
1. The Employers are engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
101 NLRB No. 199.