Kenosha Auto Transport Corp.

482 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the Association, and the Intervenor signed an agreement terminating the individual contract between the Employer and the Intervenor, and binding the Employer to the existing conference agreement which covered the association-wide unit. The Employer has continued to be a member of the Association and to be bound by association-wide contracts .3 The Petitioner filed its petition on October 31, 1951. Sine( joining the Association, the Employer has been bound by three- successive association wide contracts. Two of these were signed before the Petitioner made its rival claim of representation. The Employer's inclusion in the association-wide unit under the terms of these two agreements has extended over approximately 19 months. We believe that this is a sufficiently long period to preclude the establishment now of a single employer unit .4 We find that the Petitioner's proposed unit is inappropriate. We shall therefore dismiss the petition. Order IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition filed herein be, and it hereby is, dismissed. 9 The Employer and the Intervenor do not claim that the existing association-wide contract, which will not expire until December 31, 1952, is a bar. 4 In The Manufacturers' Protective & Development Association ( Consolidated Iron-Steed Manufacturing Company, Taylor and Boggis Division ), 95 NLRB 1059 , issued August 13, 1951, a union -security election case involving the same Employer , a majority of the Board directed an election in a single employer unit, holding that a one year history `of association- wide bargaining was too brief to make this broader unit the only appropriate one. At the present time, however, this bargaining history has extended over almost 2 years KENOSHA AUTO TRANSPORT CORPORATION and TRUCK DRIVERS UNION, LOCAL 654) INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS , CHAUF- FEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, AFL, PETITIONER. Case No. 9-RC-1430. March 10, 1952 Decision and Order Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Richard C. Curry, 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 Murdock]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 1 The Employer 's motion to dismiss is granted for reasons hereinafter stated. 98 NLRB No. 85. KENOSHA AUTO TRANSPORT CORPORATION 483 2. The labor organization involved claims 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 following reasons: The Petitioner seeks to represent a unit consisting of all office and clerical employees at the Employer's terminal in Springfield, Ohio: The Employer as the basis for its motion to dismiss contends that the only appropriate unit consists of all office and clerical employees of the employer members of an association in the Springfield, Ohio,,area 3 From 1937 to 1947 the Employer and the Petitioner have had col- lective bargaining agreements covering the truck drivers -and yard- men of this Employer. Beginning with 1947 there was created an informal association of employers,4 all of whom are engaged in the salve business with terminals at Springfield. Since 1947 these em- ployers have negotiated jointly with the Petitioner concerning wages and working conditions for all their truck drivers and yardmen and have executed contracts embodying their agreements. The last con- tracts expire in February and March 1952. There is no history of collective bargaining covering the clerical employees of the Employer or the clerical employees of the other employer-members of the Association. The clerical employees of the Employer, herein sought, are engaged in general clerical work including work on payrolls, attendance rec- ords, freight records, billing, accounts receivable, loss and damage records, and workmen's- compensation. They work in one room and are under supervision separate from that of the drivers and yardmen. However, like the drivers and yardmen, they are hourly paid, receive comparable wages, and enjoy the same benefits. It is clear that for at least 5 years the members of the informal Association have participated in joint bargaining negotiations as to drivers and yardmen and have adopted contracts resulting from such negotiations. Under these circumstances, we find that the participat- ing employers have manifested a desire to be bound in their labor rela- tions generally by joint rather than individual action. Thus, an estab- lished pattern of multiemployer bargaining exists, which, in accord- 2 Employer, an Ohio corporation having Its principal offices In Kenosha , Wisconsin, is engaged in the sale of transportation services of new motor vehicles and operates terminals in 11 States. The only terminal herein involved is at Springfield. s At the hearing, the Employer took an alternative position, that If the Board should ,Ind a single employer unit appropriate, the Board should refuse to allow the Petitioner to represent the clerical employees on the ground of the confidential nature of their work with reference to the other employees represented by the Petitioner . - Because of our holding herein , we find It unnecessary to consider the Employer 's alternative position on the unit issue. 4 The members of the Association are : The Employer , Howard Sober, Inc., Fugate & Girton Drive-A-Way Co, and United Transports, Inc. 484 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ante with our prior decisions,5 controls the type of unit appropriate for the office and clerical employees. Accordingly, we find that a multiemployer unit consisting of the office and clerical employees of the four employer members named herein, constitutes an appropriate unit for purposes of collective bar- gaining and that a unit limited to the office and clerical employees of a single employer is inappropriate. We shall therefore dismiss the petition. Order IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition herein, be and it hereby is, dismissed. 5 Columbia Pictures Corporation, 84 NLRB 647; Columbia Marble Company, 89 NLRB 1482 ; Port Angeles Automobile Dealers Association, 91 NLRB No . 206; cf. Alabama Power Company, 93 NLRB No. 190. BELKNAP HARDWARE & MANUFACTURING COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE WORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL, PETI- TIONER. Case No. 9-RC-1168. March 10, 1952 Supplemental Decision and Order On September 13, 1951, pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election issued by the Board,' an election by secret ballot was con- ducted under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Ninth Region among the employees in the unit found to be appropriate. Upon completion of the election, a tally of ballots was issued and duly served upon the parties. The tally shows that of approximately 522 eligible voters. 513 cast ballots, of which 131 were for the Petitioner, 351 against the Petitioner, and 31 were challenged. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed timely objections to the election. On December 10, 1951, the Regional Director issued his report on objec- tions to the election, in which he recommended that a hearing be ordered to resolve the issues of fact raised by the objections. There- after, in conformity with a Board order, a hearing was held before Lloyd R. Fraker, hearing officer, on January 15, 1952. The hearing officer issued no report. The Employer filed a timely brief following the hearing. The Petitioner's chief objection 2 is that the Employer interfered with the election by making an antiunion speech on company time and property on the morning of the election, while denying the Union an equal opportunity to address the employees. 196 NLRB 157. 2 The Petitioner also objected to the election on the ground that sample ballots which had been posted on the bulletin boards had been defaced with knowledge of the Em- ployer. As the Union's representative stated at the hearing that no evidence would be adduced in support of this objection , it will not be further considered. 98 NLRB No. 88.