Furniture Employers' Council of Southern California, Inc.

1002 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD FURNITURE EMPLOYERS' COUNCIL OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA , INC., AND MEMBER EMPLOYERS and FURNITURE WORKERS, UPHOLSTERERS AND- WOODWORKERS UNION, LOCAL 576, INDEPENDENT, PETITIONER FURNITURE EMPLOYERS ' COUNCIL OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA , INC. and UNITED FURNITURE WORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL 1010 , CIO, PETI- TIONER FURNITURE EMPLOYERS' COUNCIL OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA , INC., PETI- TIONER and UNITED FURNITURE WORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL 1010,. CIO and FURNITURE WORKERS, UPHOLSTERERS AND WOODWORKERS UNION, LOCAL 576, INDEPENDENT. Cases Nos. d1-RC-155, 0i1-RC- 2013, and 21-RM 19,1. October 19, 1.951 Decision and Direction of Election Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the Na-- tional Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Jack R. Berger, 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 [Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Reyn- olds]. Upon the entire record in these cases , the Board finds : 1. The Employers are engaged in commerce within.the meaning of the Act. 2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain em- ployees of the Employers. 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa- tion of employees of the Employers within the meaning of Section 9- (c) (1) and of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The Council and United Furniture Workers of America, CIO, herein called Local 1010 , request a multiemployer unit composed of all employees of the present members of the Furniture Employers' Coun- cil of Southern California, Inc. 2 The Independent and Upholsterers i The hearing officer properly excluded all evidence directed to the authenticity of affi- davits filed under Section 9 (h) of the -Act by Gus O. Brown, business agent of Furniture Workers, Upholsterers and Woodworkers Union, Local 576, Independent , herein called the Independent. See General Baking Company, 90 NLRB 588. The Furniture Employers : Council of Southern California , Inc., herein called the Council, contends that the hearing officer erred in rejecting an offer of proof to impeach Brown as a witness. Brown testified concerning the appropriate unit. As our decision below favors the Council's contention in that respect , the hearing officer's ruling could not have been prejudicial , and we therefore find it unnecessary to pass upon its correctness. 2 The member companies are Brown -Saltman Furniture Co.; Crest Pacific Co.; Edan Company, Inc. (Felters, Inc.) ; Hollycraft Furniture , Inc. ; L. C. Phenix Company ; Inter- national Furniture Company ; S. Karpen and Brothers Division ; Sealy Mattress Com- pany ; and Spartan Furniture Manufacturing Co. 96 NLRB No. 151. 1 FURNITURE EMPLOYERS' COUNCIL OF SOUTHERN CALIF., n c.1OO3 International Union, Local 15, AFL, herein called the Intervenor, seek to represent the same employees in single-employer units s They contend that whatever past bargaining took place on a multiemployer basis does not justify such a unit now. Some of the present members of the Council first engaged in group bargaining in 1943, when, together with certain other furniture manu- facturers in the Los Angeles area, they entered upon joint negotiations with United Furniture Workers of America, Local 576, CIO, herein called Local 576, CIO. At that time the Employers were not organ- ized; they commenced joint bargaining at the request of Local 576, CIO, at that union's hall. Between 1943 and 1946 the joint negotia- tions resulted in separate but identical contracts for each of the Em- ployers involved, in which all the usual subjects of collective bargain- ing were covered. There is some indication in the record that, during these same years, some other employers in this area negotiated with the same union individually; it is clear, however, that all signed the same contract which grew, at least in part, out of the multiemployer bargaining. In 1946, the Employer group, acting in concert through a single representative, canceled all their contracts and again con- ducted group negotiations resulting in identical contracts. On this occasion, some employers signed individual contracts, and others, in small groups, signed single contracts which covered several manu- facturers. Early in 1947, 28 employers organized a Furniture Employers Nego- tiating Committee. In May 1947, this Committee negotiated a supple- mental agreement for the employees and in August of that year a new 1-year contract. By direct negotiation during this year one employer canceled a termination notice, several employers extended their con- tracts separately, and three executed a "no liability" clause which the Council had rejected. Finally, in December 1947, the present Council was incorporated to succeed the Committee. The Council, through its executive director, negotiated annual contracts on behalf of all member employers in 1948 and 1949. The contracts were signed by the separate employers and by the Council and covered all the major aspects of 31n its petition and at the start of the hearing, the Independent urged an alternative unit request, in which it proposed a single multiemployer unit embracing not only the present nine members of the Council , but also four other employers who had previously withdrawn from that organization . These are Belvedere Manufacturing Co., Crown Upholstering Co., Fishman Furniture Manufacturing Co., and Friend Furniture Manu- facturing Corp. The record shows that before the hearing the Independent had executed separate collective bargaining contracts with each of those employers. At the close of the hearing, the Independent moved to amend its petition to delete the names of these four companies. A like request was also made to the Regional Director, and approved by him, in the form of a motion to withdraw the Independent 's petition to that extent. We find no merit in the exception taken by Local 1010 to the hearing officer's ruling granting the motion to amend , because, as of the close of the hearing, Local 1010 had made no showing of interest among the employees of the companies involved. In view of the disposition of these four employers, we deem it unnecessary to consider Local 1010's motion , made earlier in the hearing, to dismiss the Independent's petition as to these four employers. 1004 DECISIONS 'OF NATIONAL- LABOR RELATIONS BOARD their bargaining. Through these years it has been a regular practice to set piecework rates, after the master contract was completed, at single- plant level to adjust for the different products and manufacturing processes and techniques of the member employers. For various reasons the membership of the Council has not been constant. At least 8 employers went out of business, some were dropped from the organization, some quit, and others joined .4 In 1950, there developed a schism within Local 576, CIO, resulting in the -formation of the two principal competing unions in this proceeding. Of the 12 employers then constituting the Council, 4 elected to rec- ognize the Independent and executed separate contracts with that union. The remaining 8 have continued the Council and have dealt with Local 1010; in their petition in Case No. 21-RC-191, they request the Board to continue their existing multiemployer unit. By their participation over a period of years in the joint bargaining set forth above, the members of the Council have clearly manifested their desire to be bound in their labor relations generally by joint, rather than individual, action. The successive contracts resulting from their group action in the past have established a fixed pattern of multi- employer bargaining which, in accordance with Board policy, war- rants continuance of a like bargaining unit now.' Indeed, the Inde- pendent, the principal opponent of such a unit, recognized its appro- priateness in the petition which it filed in this very proceeding. It is true, as the Independent now points out, that over the years there have been isolated instances of single-employer action on minor matters relating to the uniform contracts made by the Council and that piece- work rates have been determined on a single-plant basis. The indi- vidual settlement of piece rates is not unusual, however, in multi- employer bargaining, and the occasional single-employer actions were relatively insignificant, when viewed in the light of the over-all and basic matters determined by the Council's bargaining on behalf of all its members e Nor is there merit to the Independent's contention that a Council-wide unit is not appropriate because the present membership results from "gerrymandering" in 1950 by the currrent members in order to deal with Local 1010. The only relevant facts in the record are that four members quit the Council in 1950 to bargain with the Independent. The reasons which motivate employers to join or quit employer associations are irrelevant to the issue here presented. In view of the collective bargaining history shown, and on the record as 4 The Council's original membership was 22. In 1948 an additional member was acquired, and 4 either resigned or discontinued operations. In 1949 the nrembership dropped to 12 because 1 more member was added and 8 either resigned, were dropped, or went out of business. 6 Associated Shoe Industries of Southeastern Massachusetts, Inc., 81 NLRB 224; Air Condstsoning Company of Southern California, 81 NLRB 946. Central Foundry Company, 48 NLRB 5; New Bedford Cotton Manufacturers ' Associa- tion, 47 NLRB 1345, 1352. IGLEHEART BROTHERS DIVISION, GENERAL FOODS CORPORATION1005 a whole, we are satisfied that the multiemployer unit sought to be con- tinued by the Council and Local 1010 is now appropriate, rather than the single-employer units requested by the other two unions involved. Accordingly, we find that all production and maintenance employees of the members 7 of the Furniture Employers' Council of Southern California, Inc., Los Angeles, California, excluding truck drivers em- ployed by International Furniture Company, S. Karpen & Brothers Division, and Brown-Saltman Furniture Company,8 administrative, office and clerical, and professional employees, and all supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (a) of the Act. [Text of Directions of Election omitted from publication in this volume.] 4 See footnote 2. These employees , totaling three , have been and are now covered by a contract with Local Union No. 196, International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehouse- men & Helpers of America, AFL. IGLEHEART BROTHERS DIVISION , GENERAL FOODS CORPORATION and UNITED PACKINGHOUSE WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER. Case No. 35-RC--5 . October 19, 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 Lloyd R. Fraker, 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, 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 labor organization involved claims to represent certain employees of the Employer. 3. Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election executed by the Petitioner and the Employer on July 28, 1950, an election was conducted on August 22, 1950, among the employees in- volved herein? On December 8, 1950, the Board certified that the ' The Employer moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that it was untimely filed. For the reasons set forth in paragraph numbered 3, infra, the motion is hereby denied. 2 35-RC-414. The dates of this stipulation for certification upon consent election and the last election are contained in the files of the Board, of which we take administrative notice. 96 NLRB No. 149.