Motor Cargo, Inc.

716 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD to one of its members rather than to an employee of Rothermel Brothers or Maritime Oil Company. 2. Within ten ( 10) days from the date of this Decision and Determiftation of Dispute , I. L. A. No. 1351 , Steamship Clerks and Checkers , Independent , shall notify the Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region, in writing , as to what steps it has taken to comply with the terms of this Decision and Determi- nation of Dispute. MOTOR CARGO , INC. and MOTOR CARGO , INC. INDEPEND- ENT UNION , Petitioner . Case No. 8-RC - 2131. April 30, 1954 DECISION AND ORDER Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Philip Fusco, 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 mean- ing of the Act. 2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent employees of the Employer'1 3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the representation of employees of the Employer within the mean- ing of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and ( 7) of the Act, for the following reasons: The Petitioner seeks a unit of owner -operators2 on a com- panywide basis , excluding all other over-the-road truckdrivers and employees of the Employer . The Employer and the Team- sters contend that the unit sought is inappropriate because of the Employer' s prior history of bargaining on abroader basis. The Employer has approximately 31 truck freight terminals covering a 15-State area, with the home office terminal being located in Akron, Ohio. With the exception of the Ohio terminals, the bargaining for all over -the-road truckdrivers , including owner-operators , of all of the Employer's terminals has been on a multiemployer multistate basis since 1938. The over-the- road truckdrivers , including owner-operators , of the Em- ployer's Ohio terminals were bargained for on a multiemployer Statewide basis from 1938 to 1952. The Ohio employers, how- 'Central States Drivers Council and International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, AFL, and various locals of said International, herein collectively referred to as the Teamsters , Highway Carriers Employers Association, Inc., Steel Truckers Employers Association, and Missouri-Kansas Motor Carriers Conference were permitted to intervene at the hearing. 2 The owner-operators are over -the-road truckdrivers who own and drive equipment which they have leased to the Employer. 108 NLRB No. 98. THE WEATHERHEAD COMPANY, ANTWERP DIVISION 717 ever, including the instant Employer, joined in the multi- employer multistate negotiations leading to the execution by the Employer of a contract with the Teamsters on February 1, 1952, covering the Employer's Ohio terminals, as well as those outside of that State. The Employer was represented at those negotiations by one of its own officials, as well as by the representative of the employer association of which it was a member. The Employer has one of its officials on the em- ployers' areawide grievance committee. The Employer also stated that it desires to continue bargaining on the multi- employer multistate basis. The Employer and the Teamsters contend that this history of bargaining on a broader basis renders inappropriate the unit sought by the Petitioner. The Petitioner contends that the Employer's history of multiemployer multistate bargaining has not been of sufficient duration to preclude finding appropriate a single-employer unit in this case. We do not, agree. The Employer participated in the multiemployer multistate negotia- tions leading to its contract with the Teamsters of February 1, 1952, and has stated that it desires to continue to bargain on this broader basis. In a recent case, 3 the Board found inappro- priate a single-employer unit where the employer had partici- pated in multiemployer bargaining for only 11 months but had reaffirmed its desire to continue to bargain on such a basis. In the circumstances of this case, we find that the single-em- ployer unit sought by the Petitioner is not appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining .4 As the petition seeks an inappropriate unit, it will be dismissed.5 [The Board dismissed the petition.] 3 Acryvin Corporation of America, 107 NLRB 917. 4 Taylor and Boggis Foundry Division of. Consolidated Iron-Steel Mfg. Co., 98 NLRB 481. 5 In view of our decision herein, we find it unnecessary to consider the other reasons assigned by the Employer and the Teamsters for their contention that the petition should be dismissed. THE WEATHERHEAD COMPANY, ANTWERP DIVISION and INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIR- CRAFT AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL 1269 , CIO, Petitioner and WEATHER- HEAD EMPLOYEES ' ASSOCIATION. Case No. 8-RC-2132. April 30, 1954 DECISION AND ORDER Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, ahearing was held before Ralph W. Tyner, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the 108 NLRB No. 101.