Metz Brewing Co.

METZ BREWING COMPANY 409 METZ BREWING COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS, LOCALS 38 AND 38-A, AFL, PETITIONER FALSTAFF BREWING CORPORATION and INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OP- ERATING ENGINEERS , LOCALS 38 AND 38-A, AFL, PETITIONER STORZ BREWING COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS, LOCALS 38 AND 38-A, AFL, PETITIONER. Cases Nos. 17- RC-1203, 17-RC-1204, and 17-RC-1205. February 09, 1952 Decision and Order Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before William J. Scott, 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 [Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Styles]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 1. The Employers are engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. -2. The Petitioner is a labor organization claiming to represent em- ployees of the Employers. 3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the represen- tation 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: The Petitioner seeks three separate units of all firemen, oilers, boiler washers, and utility men,2 one for each Employer. The Intervenor, relying on a long history of joint collective bargaining, contends that the only appropriate unit is a single unit of this category of employees of all the Employers. The Employers herein are engaged principally in the manufacture and sale of beer. The record discloses that for at least the past 12 years the Employers through their representatives have participated in joint negotiations with the Intervenor, resulting in successive con- tracts signed by all the Employers. Moreover, it is undisputed that only recently both the Employer and the Intervenor refrained from giving the requisite contractual notice of termination of their last i International Brotherhood of Firemen and Oilers , Local No. 82, AFL, herein called the Intervenor, was permitted to intervene in this proceeding on the basis of a current contract with the Employers . It is immaterial whether or not the Intervenor was out-of compliance with the filing requirements at the time of the hearing. 2 Excluding all salaried and clerical employees, production employees, oilers in the • boiler shop , watchmen , and guards and supervisors , as defined in the Act. 98 NLRB No. 54. 410 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD agreement, thereby permitting this agreement to renew itself for another year.3 It is thus evident that the Employers have indicated an intention to be bound in collective bargaining by group rather than by individual action. The fact that they have not also organized into a formal association 4 or that each Employer handles its own em- ployee grievances does not preclude the establishment of a multi- employer unit. In view of the long history of collective bargaining on a multi- employer basis and the absence of unequivocal evidence that the em- ployers intend to abandon their practice of bargaining jointly, we find that the single employer units requested by the Petitioner are inappropriate. -As the Petitioner does not seek an election in the broader unit, we shall dismiss the petitions herein. Order Upon the basis of the entire record in this proceeding, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the petitions herein be, and they hereby are, dismissed. 9 As the petitions , however , were timely flied before the operation of the automatic re- newal clause in the Intervenor's contract, this proceeding is not barred. ' Abbotta Dairies, Inc., et al., 97 NLRB 1064. BLACKSTONE MILLS, INC.1 and TEXTILE WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER . Case No. 1-RC-2495. February -29, 1952 Decision and Order Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Robert S. Fuchs, 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 is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 2. The labor organizations involved claim 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 follow- ing reasons: I The petition and other formal papers were amended at the hearing to show the correct name of the Employer. 98 NLRB No. 59.