The Van Iderstine Co.Download PDFNational Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsAug 3, 195195 N.L.R.B. 966 (N.L.R.B. 1951) Copy Citation 966 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 4. The Petitioner seeks to represent a single unit of production and maintenance employees in the Emerson and Spiller plants. The two corporations agree as to the composition of the unit, but contend that there should be separate units covering employees of each company. In the light of the facts set forth above, on the basis of which we have found that the two corporations constitute a single Employer within the meaning of the Act, we find that the single unit as sought by the Petitioner is appropriate. We find that all production and maintenance employees of the Employer, including the fireman-watchman ,4 but excluding office clerical and professional employees, guards, watchmen, and super- visors 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. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this volume.] 4 As it appears from the record that the fireman -watchman does not spend more than 50 percent of his time as a guard , we shall include him in the unit . Wiley Mfg. Inc , 92 NLRB 40. THE VAN IDERSTINE COMPANY and MEAT AND POULTRY WASTE WORK- ERS OF AMERICA, PETITIONER. Case No. -RC-3042. August .9, 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 James V. Altieri, 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 this case to a three-member panel [Members Houston, Murdock, and Styles]. Upon the entire record in this case," the Board finds : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain employees of the Employer. i The requests by the Employer and the Intervenor for oral argument are denied because in our opinion the record and the briefs adequately present the issues and the- positions of the parties. 95 NLRB No. 117. THE VAN IDERSTINE COMPANY 967 .3. The Intervenor, Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Work- men of North America , Local No . 640, AFL , and the Employer executed a contract on February 17, 1949 , with an expiration date of February 17, 1951. A supplemental contract was executed November 10, 1950 , modifying the terms of the contract and extending its expira- tion date to February 17, 1953. The instant petition was filed on October 27, 1950. As the petition was timely filed with respect to the contract 's original expiration date of February 17, 1951, and as the supplemental contract was itself executed subsequent to the peti- tion, we find, contrary to the contention of the Employer and the Intervenor , that the contract does not , bar a present determination of representatives? 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 Petitioner ' seeks a unitof all collection department employees -.employed .by' the Employer, excluding office clerical and professional employees, watchmen, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act: No issue is raised as to the appropriateness of a unit limited to collec- tion 'department employees , who are separately supervised and have, since 1944, been bargained for apart from the production and mainte- Trance employees .3: The sole issue presented relates to the scope of the !unit. The Employer and the Intervenor contend that only a multi- !employer unit is :appropriate: The Employer , who is engaged in the production of tallow , grease, and related products , has for a number of years been associated, to- gether with several other companies in the same industry , in an infor- mal group which became known as the Rendering Industry Employers Group . However, until 1950 no attempt was made by the members of ithegroup to bargain on a joint basis with labor organizations ; and for a period of..10 years prior to the instant petition, the Intervenor has bargained , and, executed contracts' with the members of the group on an individual basis, including the contracts , executed February 17, 1949. Those contracts contained clauses permitting wage reopening in 1950 , and in anticipation of this reopening the members of the Group met in December 1949, and agreed to handle the problems raised by the wage reopening clauses on a joint basis. =Pointer Willamette Company, Inc., 93 NLRB 673 A. Siegel & Sons, Inc., 94 NLRB -471. The fact that the supplemental contract may have been executed in good faith and prompted by changed economic conditions dots' not ; affect this result. American 'Steel Foundries; 85';NLRB19;"United State. Finishinq ' Company , 79 NLRB 699. 3'See Liggett & Myers Tobacco Company, 91 NLRB 1145. : 968 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD In January 1950, the Employer and other members of the 'Group participated in joint negotiations with the Intervenor in relation to the wage reopening clauses contained in 'the individual contracts. Failing to reach an agreement, the participants submitted the dispute to arbitration. An award was issued by the arbitrator on June 20, 1950, which resulted in separate identical contracts incorporating its provisions executed between the Intervenor and each of the companies. During the latter part of 1950, the members of the Group partici- pated for the first time in joint bargaining negotiations with the Inter- venor looking to the execution of a new contract. The first meeting was held ' on October 25, 1950, and the negotiations which ensued resulted in the execution of the contract of November 10, 1950. As noted above, the instant petition was'filed on October 27, 1950. On these facts we find no merit to the contention of the Employer and the Intervenor that the single-employer unit sought by the Peti- tioner is inappropriate. Even if we were to assume that the joint negotiations in January 1950, which dealt solely with common prob- lems raised by the similar wage reopening clauses contained in the individually negotiated contracts, were sufficient to establish a pattern of group bargaining, the history ' of joint bargaining thus' initiated was of less than 1 year's duration prior to the filing, of the petition.. A multiemployer bargaining history of such brief duration not based on a Board unit finding, and preceded by 10 years of individual bar- gaining, is insufficient to warrant a conclusion that only a multiem- ployer unit is appropriate.4 , A fortiori the history of joint bargain- ing is not controlling here if it be viewed as having been initiated with the negotiations culminating in the contract of November 10, 1950. Accordingly, we conclude that a unit confined to employees of the Employer is an appropriate unit .1i We therefore find that all collection department employees of the Employer, excluding office clerical and professional employees, watch- men, guards, 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. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this volume.] 4 Jerry Fairbanks , Inc., 93 NLRB 898; Central Optical Company , at ai., 88 NLRB 416; Norval Packing Company, 76 NLRB 254 ; Koppers Company, Inc., 81 NLRB 1186. s Member Murdock finds a unit limited to this Employer 's 'collection department to be appropriate for the additional reason that the Employer ' s production and maintenance employees for a number of years have been and presently are represented by another labor ' organization as a separate unit . Members Houston and Styles deem it unnecessary to pass upon this point. Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation