Anderson-Wagner, Inc.

ANDERSON-WAGNER, INC. 291 money equal to that which he normally would, have earned in such position from the date of discrimination against him to the date of his reinstatement, less his net earnings during said period." Each Respondent to make available to the Board, upon request, payroll and other records to facilitate the checking of the amount of back pay due.13 Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Master Furniture Guild, Local 1285, affiliated with Retail Clerks Interna- tional Association, AFL, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 2. The Respondents, and each of them, by discriminating in regard to the tenure of employment of its employees, thereby discouraging membership in Master Guild, Local 1285, affiliated with Retail Clerks International Association, AFL, have engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. 3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing their employees in the eaer- -cise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondents, and each of them, have engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. [Recommended Order omitted from publication in this volume.] 12 Crossett Lumber Co , 8 NLRB 440, Republic Steel Company, 311 U S 7. 13F TV. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289. ANDERSON-WAGNER, INC. and WALTER STANLEY KACZMAREK, PETI- TIONER and Los ANGELES BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUN- CIL; Los ANGELES COUNTY DISTRICT COUNCIL OF CARPENTERS; MILLMEN AND CABINET MAKERS LOCAL No. 721, UNITED BRdrHER- HOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF AMERICA; BROTHERI-ioOD OF PAINTERS, LOCAL UNION No. 792, DECORATORS AND PAPER HANGERS OF AMERICA; LOCAL UNION No. 371, SIIEET METAL WORKERS INTER- NATIONAL ASSOCIATION ; LOCAL UNION No. 196, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA ; LOCAL UNION No. 108, SHEET METAL WORKERS INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION; LOCAL No. 250, UNITED ASSOCIATION OF JOURNEYMEN AND APPRENTICES OF TIIE PLUMBING AND PIPEFIT- TING INDUSTRY OF TI-IE U. S. AND CANADA, A. F. L.; AND LOCAL No. 508, UNITED ASSOCIATION OF JOURNEYMEN AND APPRENTICES OF TIIE PLUMBING AND PIPEFITTING INDUSTRY OF THE U. S. AND CANADA, A. F. L. Case No. 21-RD-123. May 3,1951 Decision and Order Upon a decertification petition duly filed, a hearing was held before Ben Grodsky, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at 94 NLRB No. '48 292 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 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-meni- ber panel [Members Houston, Reynolds, 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 Petitioner, an employee of the Employer, asserts that the Unions are no longer the representatives, as defined in Section 9 (a) of the Act, of the employees designated in the petition. 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 (0) and (7) of the Act, for the following reasons: The Petitioner seeks a decertification election in a unit consisting of all production and maintenance employees of the Employer, with the usual exclusions. The Unions contend that the present contract between then and the Refrigerator Manufacturers' Association of Southern California (hereinafter, the Association) is binding on the Employer and a bar to the instant petition, and that the only appro- priate unit is a multiple-employer unit. Since 1947, the Employer has been a member of the Association, which prior to 1950 was authorized to bargain on behalf of the Em- ployer. As such the Employer signed the contract executed with the Unions on August 15, 1947, to remain in effect until July 1, 1948.1 However, the Employer signed no subsequent contracts and on Feb- ruary 7, 1950, it wrote to the Association withdrawing the Associa- tion's authority to represent the Employer "in any dealings with the A. F. of L., Los Angeles Building and Construction Trades Council and its affiliated local craft unions." The present contract between the Association and the Unions was negotiated o11 November 1, 1950. The Unions have never been certi- fied as the bargaining representative of either a, unit of the Employer's employees or a unit of the employees of the members of the Associa- tion. The Employer does not recognize the Unions as the representa- tive of its employees and has not done so since February 7, 1950. Section 9 (c) (1) (A) (ii) of the Act empowers the Board toi investigate a petition for decertification only with respect to a "labor organization, which has been certified or is being currently recognized by their employer." In this case, the Unions have never been certified and it is clear that they are not currently recognized by the Employer as the representative of its employees. Indeed the Unions do not even I Article 15 Section C of the 1947 agi cement, provided that the " Association has authority to represent and negotiate for the signatoiy Employers only so long as they shall remain members of the Refrigeration Manufacturers Association STRICKLAND VENEER AND LUMBER COMPANY 293 claim to represent the Employer's employees in a unit apart from the ,employees of the members of the Association. The Board, therefore, is not empowered to direct an election on a decertification petition under the aforesaid section of the amended Act.2 Accordingly, we shall dismiss the petition.3 Order IT IS IIEREBY ORDERED that the petition filed herein be, and it hereby is, dismissed. z Ilackathorn ct Meyers, 90 NLRB 785 ; Wave Publications , Inc., 90 NLRB 274; Davis. Ville Hosiery Mill, Inc., 88 NLRB 738; Cronin Motor Co ., Inc., 77 NLRB SOS; Queen City 7Varehou8es, Inc., 77 NLRB 268. 3 In view of our disposition of this case, we find it unnecessary to pass upon the various other grounds upon which the Unions contended that the instant petition should be dismissed. T. M. STRICKLAND D/B/A STRICKLAND VENEER AND LUMBER COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL WOODWORKERS OF AMERICA, C. I. 0., PETITIONER. Case No. 10-RC-11.3'5. May 3, 1951 Supplemental Decision and Certification of Representatives On February 9, 1951, pursuant to a Board Decision and Direction of Election,' an election was held under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Tenth Region among certain employees of the above-named Employer at its Waycross, Georgia, plant. There- after, a tally of ballots was furnished the parties which showed that of the approximately 45 eligible voters, 23 cast valid ballots, of which 11 were for and 3 were against the Petitioner, and 9 were challenged. On February 27, 1951, the Regional Director, after investigating the challenges, issued a report on election, challenged ballots and recom- mendation to the Board. On March 8, 1951, the Petitioner filed ob- jections to report on election and recommendation of Regional Director. The Regional Director sustained the challenges to the eight ballots cast by members of the woods crew.2 This crew, at the time the Board's Decision and Direction of Election issued on February 9, 1951, was performing wood-cutting operations for the Employer. Shortly thereafter, the Employer leased its woodlands to two in- dividuals and, by letter dated February 1, 1951, terminated the employ- ment of its woods crew. The members of the woods crew were hired by the lessees, who have complete control over their conditions of em- ployment, including their wages. Under these circumstances, the Regional Director found that the members of the woods crew had ' Unpublished. 2 The Regional Director made no recommendation as to the ninth challenged ballot as it was insufficient to affect the outcome of the election. 94 NLRB No. 53.