Cody Distributing Co.

CODY DISTRIBUTING COMPANY 863 sent to the customer was that he did not proofread it, and the customer is supposed to proofread it and send it back. In order to show that the crew was incompetent as claimed, it is of course in- cumbent on the Respondent to demonstrate the truth of its contention. One thing .that is clearly established is that through the oversight of someone a mistake was ' made in the printing of one numeral an copy which contained approximately 400 'other numerals' which were correctly reproduced. Just who was responsible, the evidence fails satisfactorily to indicate. Harris says he would blame the strippers or the plateinakers, and again, that the old negative rather than the current fiat was picked up by the stripper or =the cameraman or somebody, but he does not know who. Soehren declared that the men received an okay before the final plates were made, and the strippers had nothing to do with putting in the material resulting in the error. Zeccola maintains that the proofreading is supposed to be done by the customer and the job was done according to the way the customer corrected and marked the blueprint. On this state of the evidence, I am unable to discern any -convincing proof that by virtue of this error, any one employee in the shop-let alone all of the employees-can be charged with "incompetency and inability to satisfactorily perform the duties of the jobs assigned to -them." Cody Distributing' Company and Local - 25, International Broth-- erhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen, Petitioner. Case No. 1-RC--4062. August 19,1955 DECISION AND ORDER - Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before William I. Shooer, 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 certain -em-, ployees 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 a unit limited to the employees of the Employer whose plant is located in Boston, Massachusetts. The Employer 'is engaged in the distribution of malt beverages. The Intervenor con- tends that such a unit is inappropriate because it constitutes only a ,segment of the multiemployer unit which the Intervenor has repre- sented over a period of years.. The Employer takes a neutral position on this issue. ' 1 Local 8, International Union of United Brewery, Flour, Cereal, Soft Drink and Dis- tillery Workers Union of America, CIO, was permitted to, intervene on the basis of its contractual interest. 113 NLRB No. 98. 864 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Since 1948, the Intervenor has met in periodic bargaining sessions with a group of companies, including the Employer, which sell, dis- tribute, or manufacture soft drinks or malt beverages in the greater Boston area.' Although the number participating has varied, 6 com- panies-2 represented by Attorney Frank Wallis, s and the Employer and 3 others 4 represented by Attorney Willliam J. Wallace-have remained in the group. While the successive collective-bargaining agreements consummated through these negotiations contain language to the effect that the companies "severally and not jointly" subscribed thereto, these agreements have been expressed in terms that apply to all the members of the group. The last bargaining contract was in effect from March 1, 1953,'to March 1, 1955.5 Another such contract, to be effective for a'2-,year period ending March 1, 1957, was negotiated during the early months of 1955 by representatives of the Intervenor and the members of the multiemployer group. Thus, on May 2, 1955, the Intervenor finally notified the companies' attorneys that their counterproposals had been ratified by the Intervenor's membership. On May 10, 1955, the exact language of the contract was agreed upon and was sent to the mime'ographer,on the following day. On May 12, 1955, the Petitioner filed the instant petition. Thereafter, some of the companies other than the Employer signed identical copies of the agreement. However, the Employer has taken no steps severing itself from*the multiemployer group. We find in agreement with the Intervenor that the pattern of bar- gaining has been multiemployer'in nature. As the Employer has not unequivocally evinced an intent to pursue a course of individual action with regard to its labor relations, we believe that the above bargaining history is controlling in determining the proper unit in this proceed- ing.' Accordingly, we find that a unit confined to the Employer is inappropriate and'we shall therefore dismiss the instant petition.' [The Board dismissed the petition.] CHAIRMAN FARMER and MEMBER RODGERS took no. part in the con- sideration of the above Decision and Order. 2 Prior to February 23, 1954, these companies dealt with Locals 14 and 122 which on that date were amalgamated into Local 8 of the Intervenor. a Metro-Boston Distributing Co., Inc, and Flaffenreffer & Co, Inc. O'Brien Distributing Company, August A. Busch & Company, and Schlitz Distributing Company. 6 The parties have agreed to abide by its terms after the expiration date until the execu- tion of a new contract., 6 Atlas Storage Division, et at , 100 NLRB 1443. 7In view of the disposition of this issue, we need not pass upon the Intervenor's additional contention that the 1955-57 contract is a bar to the instant proceeding on the ground that it was completed prior to the filing of the petition herein.