Whiz Fish Products Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 19, 1951

94 N.L.R.B. 1303 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

WHIZ FISH- PRODUCTS COMPANY 1303
doubt a union's continuing majority status, it should cease bargaining
with that union. Indeed, if an employer bargains exclusively with a
union that does not in fact represent a majority of its employees, it may
be found guilty of illegal assistance in violation of Section 8 (a) (2) of
the Act.- Moreover, its refusal to bargain, if based upon a good faith
doubt as to the union's majority status, would not constitute a viola-
tion of Section 8 (a) (5). Certainly it is not an objective of the Act
to foster and encourage exclusive bargaining relationships between
employers and minority unions. On the other hand, I believe the
Board would encourage voluntarism in collective bargaining and thus
effectuate a basic purpose of the Act by refusing to intervene in situa-
tions such as this where an election would appear to be wholly unneces-
sary. In addition it would avoid the.needless expenditure of Govern-
ment money and help to cut down on the Board's already heavy case
load. Our jurisdictional policy is based in part on the premise that
the Board is not equipped to handle all of the cases over which it has
legal jurisdiction and accordingly must exercise some selectivity. I
can see no more appropriate basis for conserving our funds and efforts
than to refuse to conduct elections where they are not necessary.
For the foregoing reasons, I would dismiss the Employer's petition
on the grounds that the record fails to support a finding that a question
exists concerning the representation of the employees covered by the
petition within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) of the Act and that it
would not effectuate the policies of the Act to direct an election in his
proceeding.
WHIZ FISH PRODUCTS COMPANY and LACONNER CANNERY WORKERS
LOCAL INDUSTRIAL UNION No. 1765, CIO and INTERNATIONAL Asso-
CIATION OF MACHINISTS, LOCAL LODGE 239
COLUMBIA RIVER PACKERS ASSOCIATION, INC. and BELLINGHAM CAN-
NERY LOCAL INDUSTRIAL UNION No. 1756, CIO
BURKE PACKING COMPANY and BELLINGIAM CANNERY LOCAL INDUS-
TRIAL UNION No. 1756, CIO. Cases Nos. 19-RC-719, 19-RC-783)
19-RC-711, and 19-RC-713. June 19, 1951
Decision and Order
Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before
Howard A. McIntyre, • hearing officer. The hearing' officer's rulings
94 NLRB No. 198.
1304 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
'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, Reynolds, and Styles].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. Each of the Employers is engaged in commerce within the mean-
ing of the Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent employees
of the Employers.,
3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employers within the meaning of Section
9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, for the following
reasons:
Bellingham Cannery Local Industrial Union No. 1756, CIO, the
Petitioner in Cases Nos. 19-RC-711 and 19-RC-713, seeks to repre-
sent separate units of production and maintenance employees at the
Bellingham, Washington, plants of Columbia River Packers Associa-
tion, Inc., and Burke Packing Company, excluding all employees now
represented by IAM at these plants.
LaConner Cannery Workers Local Industrial Union No. 1765, CIO,
the Petitioner in Case No. 19-RC-712, seeks to represent a unit of pro-
duction and maintenance employees at the LaConner, Washington,
plant of Whiz Fish Products Company.
IAM, the Petitioner in Case No. 19-RC-783, seeks a unit of machin-
ists, iron chink men, fillermen, reform men, skinner and boner men,
seamermen, cannery mechanics, and mechanical helpers at the La-
Conner, Washington, plant of Whiz Fish Products Company.
ILWU opposes all the proposed units on the ground that the em-
ployees concerned are part of an association-wide unit which has been
represented for several years by ILWU. The Employers, although
apparently contending that no association-wide unit has been estab-
lished, and that single-employer units are appropriate, indicate a wil-
lingness to accept a Board determination of the appropriate bargain-
ing unit.
Puget Sound Salmon Canners, Inc., hereinafter called the Associa-
tion, was organized about 1940 to handle labor relations for its mem-
bers. The instant Employers are currently all members of the
Association, and have manifested no intention of withdrawing there-
1 Fisherman and Allied Workers Division , ILWU, Local 3-3, herein called the ILWU,
was permitted to intervene at the hearing with respect to all four cases. International
Association of Machinists , Local Lodge 239 , herein called the IAM , the Petitioner in
Case No. 19-RC-783 , was permitted to intervene with respect to Cases Nos . 19-RC-711
and 19-RC-713.
WHIZ FISH PRODUCTS COMPANY 1305
from.2 Since 1943, the Association, through its executive .secretary,
has negotiated contract terms with International Fishermen and Al-
lied Workers of America, and its successor, ILWU, purporting to
cover all production and maintenance employees. The Association
has also bargained with IAM concerning the terms of employment
of machinists, iron chink men, fillermen, reform men, skinner and
boner men, seamermen, mechanics, and mechanical helpers .3 Identical
copies of the contracts negotiated by the Association with ILWU
and IAM have been executed by the members of the Association. The
most recent such contracts, covering the period from July 1, 1950,
to July 1, 1951, have been signed by all the Employers in the instant
cases, except that Whiz Fish Products Company, although executing
the ILWU contract, did not sign the current IAM contract 4 appar-
ently because the IAM's organization of its employees occurred at
a later date.
The Board has heretofore held that the essential element for estab-
lishing a multiemployer unit is the fact that the employers involved
have participated in, and desire to be bound by, group bargaining.5'
The fact that the results of joint negotiations by a group of employers
have, as in the instant cases, been incorporated in separate, uniform
contracts does not preclude a finding that only a multiemployer unit
is appropriates Nor is such a finding precluded, as the Employers
contend, by the failure of the Employers to agree in advance to be
bound by any contract which may be negotiated through the
Association.7
We find, upon the present record, that the Employers in the instant
cases have participated in, and demonstrated their desire to be bound
by, group rather than individual action in their labor relations. Ac-
cordingly, we find that the single-employer units here sought are in-
appropriate, and we will dismiss the petitions herein.
Order
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that all the petitions herein be, and they hereby
are, dismissed.
2 Columbia River Packers Association , Inc., joined the Association in 1946. The
general manager of Whiz Fish Products Company was active in the organization of the
Association , and is its current president . Although the record does not indicate when
Burke Packing Company joined the Association, its existing contract with ILWU was
negotiated through the Association, and it is currently a member of the Association.
8 The record does not show during what period the Association has bargained with IAM.
However , it is clear that the Association negotiated a contract with IAM for the period
July 1, 1950, to July 1, 1951.
4 None of these contracts is urged as a bar to the instant petitions.
s Associated Shoe Industries of Southeastern Massachusetts , Inc., et at., 81 NLRB 224.
U Balaban & Satz ( Princess Theatre ), 87 NLRB 1071.
R Carnation Company, 90 NLRB 1808..