Capital District Beer Distributors Association

176 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD dians, like domestic woodsmen, are seasonal employees with an interest in representation entitling them to vote.8 Although we find that Canadian woodsmen should be included in the unit and are eligible to vote, the Petitioner's showing of interest in a unit including them is insufficient to warrant the holding of an election. Accordingly, without disposing of other issues raised by the Employer, we shall grant the Employer's motion to dismiss the petition. [The Board dismissed the petition.] 8 See Smith Rice Atiil, Inc ., 102 NLRB 1252. The situation in Vermont Copper Co., Inc., 59 NLRB 853, involving temporary Canadian importees , which is relied upon by the Peti- tioner in its brief, is clearly distinguishable. CAPITAL DISTRICT BEER DISTRIBUTORS ASSOCIATION AND ITS MEMBERS : JOHN J. BOLAND DISTRIBUTORS CO.; PETER S. DUSZA; EMIL GUND- LACH; JOSEPH J. HOY, JR. INC.; IARASSI'S MADISON BEVERAGE CO; WILLIAM D. KEIS; PADULA'S HERKIMER BOTTLING CO.; SICILIANO'S CO. INC.; WEIGELS DISTRIBUTORS, INC.; WEST STREET BEVERAGE CO. and LOCAL 1013 AND LOCAL 1015, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA? AFL, PETITIONERS. Case No. 2-RC-6411. July 16, 1954 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 Julius J. Altman, 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. Capital District Beer Distributors Association, herein called the Association, is an unincorporated voluntary association, made up of the 10. concerns collectively referred to in the caption, and hereinafter, as the Members.: The Members are engaged in the distribution of beer in the vicinity of Albany and Troy, New York. During the past year, the total pur- chases made by them amounted to over $4,250,000, of which in excess of $1,205,000 represented purchases made outside the State of New York. During the same period, the total sales made by the Members, all within the State, were in excess of $4,250,000. On the basis of the foregoing, and the entire record, we find that the Members are jointly engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act and that it will ' As more fully discussed in paragraph numbered 4, infra, the Members have engaged in, joint bargaining and comprise an appropriate multiemployer bargaining unit. 109 NLRB No. 30. CAPITAL DISTRICT BEER DISTRIBUTORS ASSOCIATION 177 effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction over them in this proceeding. 2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent employees of the Members.2 3. The Intervenor contends that a contract which was executed on November 1, 1952, in which it, its Local Unions Nos. 13 and 15, and the Members are named as parties, automatically renewed itself and continues in existence, thus operating as a bar to the petition filed in this case on November 23,1953. We find no merit in this contention. It appears that Local Unions Nos. 13 and 15 have been in contractual relationship with members of the Association since 1946. The Novem- ber 1952 contract, in which the Intervenor is also named as a party, is the most recent contract entered into between Local Unions Nos. 13 and 15 and the Members.3 That contract contained an expiration date of November 1, 1953, but provided for its automatic renewal there- after from year to year in the absence of notice by "either party" 60 days "prior to any annual expiration date that changes are desired." The Joint Executive Board of Brewery Workers of Albany and Vicin- ity, hereinafter also referred to as the Joint Board, joined in negotiat- ing and endorsing the contract. It had theretofore handled all contract matters for Local Unions Nos. 13 and 15.4 At separate meetings held by Local Unions Nos. 13 and 15 during the latter part of July 1953, a majority of those present voted to dis affiliate from the Intervenor and to affiliate with International Brother- hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of Amer- ica, AFL. On July 27, 1953, the Intervenor appointed a trustee to administer the affairs of Local Unions Nos. 13 and 15 and advised the Members by letter that "All matters pertaining to the administra- tion of the existing contract and the negotiation of any new contract will be handled by the International Union and the Trustee or his designees, as the representatives of your employees." By letters dated July 31, 1953, the Petitioners notified the Members of the action taken by the members of Local Unions Nos. 13 and 15 to disaffiliate from the Intervenor and advised them that they, the Petitioners, represented the employees covered by the contract and that all grievances and other matters related to the contract should be referred to them. 2 As the record indicates that Internat `onal Union of United Brewery , Flour, Cereal, Soft Drink and Distillery Workers, CIO, the Intervenor herein, and the Petitioners exist for the purpose of bargain Dg with employers with respect to wages, hours, and other con- ditions of employment , we find each of them to be a labor organization within the mean- ing of the Act. The Intervenor's motion to dismiss in this connection is therefore den ed. 8 Whether or not the Intervenor was a party to any prior contract between its locals and the Members is not disclosed by the record. 6 Including, according to an uncontradicted statement at the hear'ng by counsel for the Members, the giving of notices relating to the extension and modification of contracts. 178 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD On August 25,1953, the Joint Executive Board of Brewery Workers of Albany and Vicinity notified the Members in writing that "The Union representing your' employees desires to modify ... [the November 1952] contract and shall present said changes in the near future." Because of the notice requesting modification of the 1952 contract which was served upon the Members by the Joint Board, we find that the contract did not renew itself on November 1, 1953. That this notice was timely given with respect to the automatic renewal date of the contract (September 1, 1953) is plain. Although counsel for the Intervenor questions the authority of the Joint Board to give such notice,5 the record shows, as already noted, that the Joint Board negotiated and endorsed the contract and theretofore had handled all contract matters for Local Unions Nos. 13 and 15. Also, the Intervenor's letter of July 27 to the Members in no way indicated that the Joint Board would not be the appointed trustee's designee and continue to act on behalf of Local Unions Nos. 13 and 15 as it had previously in all contract matters involving the Members. Under all the circumstances, we find that, when the Joint Board gave the notice in question, it had at least apparent authority to do so. There is therefore no bar to a current determination of representatives.6 A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representation 'of employees of the Members within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The Petitioners and the Members are agreed as to the composition of the unit. However, the Petitioners, relying on past bargaining by the Members, contend that a single unit covering employees of the Members is alone appropriate, whereas the Members request "an individual firm election,"' but state that "After that we are ready to sit down and bargain with them." The Intervenor did not express its position on the unit question. All the Members, except William D. Keis, have been members of the Association since it was established in 1937; Keis joined in 1949. From 1946 until 1952, the members of the Association, meeting as a body, engaged in collective bargaining with Local Unions Nos. 13 and 15, with respect to the employees sought by the Petitioners in this proceeding. All but 2 or 3 of the Members agreed to be bound by these negotiations and most of the contracts resulting therefrom 6 The position taken by him at the hearing was simply that "I don 't think that letter had the authority of the particular local." 6 Canada Dry ginger Ale, Incorporated, 73 NLRB 460 ; Joseph E. Knox & Co. Inc, 86 NLRB 1257 ; Alaska Salmon Industry, Inc., 89 NLRB 1379. We accordingly find it unnecessary to pass upon the validity of the reasons urged by the Petitioners and the Members for holding the contract not to be a bar. 7 The reason for this request , as stated at the hearing, is that "several of the employees of the individual employers have indicated that the union does not represent them, and for our own legal protection we are asking that the individual firms be polled." DURA STEEL PRODUCTS COMPANY 179 were signed by all the members of the Association. In certain cases, it was stipulated at the hearing, some members of the Association signed separate contracts, which may have been identical to the master contracts. Of the employees requested by the Petitioners about whom testimony was adduced at the hearing, the record shows that the drivers and helpers of all the Members receive identical pay, work identical hours, and enjoy identical working conditions. On the basis of these facts and on the record as a whole, we find that the Members have indicated an intention to be bound in collective bargaining by group rather than by individual action. In view of this fact, and in the absence of unequivocal evidence that the Members intend to abandon their practice of bargaining jointly's we are satis- fied that the multiemployer unit sought to be continued by the Petitioners is appropriate.9 Accordingly, we find that all warehousemen and keg and bottle drivers and helpers employed by the Members, excluding checkers, watchmen, guards, office clerical employees, professional employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] MEMBER PETERSON took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Direction of Election. 8 That the Association itself has not signed any contract on behalf of the Members, or that all the Members were not bound by their joint negotiations nor had uniformly signed the single master contracts resulting therefrom , does not preclude the establishment of a multiemployer unit . Samuel Bernstein & Co., 98 NLRB 1144; Bryant's Marina, Inc., et al., 92 NLRB 718. 8 The position taken by the Members at the hearing indicates that they would prefer to continue their past practice of joint bargaining. DURA STEEL PRODUCTS COMPANY and LOCAL 990, INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE WORKERS OF AMERICA (UAW-AFL), PETITIONER. Case No. 21-RC-3477. July 16, 1954 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 Fred W. Davis, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. The Employer moved to dismiss the petition as the Intervenor, United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America, Local 1421, had not filed a waiver of 109 NLRB No. 18. 334811-55-vol. 109-13