Northern Nevada Chapter

550 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. WE WILL resume our rough carpentry operations and offer the employees named below immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substan- tially equivalent positions as carpenters without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed and make them whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result of our discrimination against them. Thomas Giarmello Jack Pate Anthony De Rita Ernest Rossi Charles Lovegreen Mario Santucci Raymond Lord Robert Sormanti Albert Longo Anthony Sepe Ralph Miale Clifford Tauvain All our employees are free to become , remain, or refrain from becoming or remaining, members of any labor organization, except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment as authorized in Section 8(a) (3) of the Act. KELLY & PICERNE, INC., Employer. Dated------------------- By------------------------------------------- (Representative ) (Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof , and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. Northern Nevada Chapter, National Electrical Contractors Asso- ciation and Represented Employers and International Brother- hood of Electrical Workers, Local 401, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. fO-RC-4312. May 15, 1961 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 Daid W. Leahy, hearing offi- cer. - 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 [Members Rodgers, Leedom, and Fanning]. 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 organization involved claims to represent certain em- ployees of the Employer. 3. A 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. 4. The Petitioner seeks a Board certification in a multiemployer unit represented by the Northern Nevada Chapter of the National Electri- cal Contractors Association, herein called NECA. Included within the, unit petitioned for are employees currently represented in the 131 NLRB No. 74. NORTHERN NEVADA CHAPTER, ETC. 551 union of some 31 individual firms. Alternatively, it seeks the most inclusive multiemployer unit the Board finds appropriate. The Elec- trical Contractors Council of the Homebuilders Association, here called HBA, intervened, contending that 14 of the 31 employers whose em- ployees are covered by the Petitioner are its members, are not NECA members, and have not delegated, or sought to delegate bargaining authority to NECA. It further argues that the unit should be limited to employees of members of NECA. We find, in agreement with all parties, that the members of NECA are included in the requested unit, for as members they have delegated to that association the power to represent and bind them in collective bargaining with the Petitioner.' There, remains, however, the issue of determining what other companies, if any, whose employees Petitioner seeks, are a part of the multiemployer unit based upon their participat- ing either directly or through NECA in multiemployer bargaining or by their expressed agreement delegating to NECA the power to repre- sent them for purposes of collective bargaining.2 The Petitioner and NECA have engaged in collective bargaining since 1953, and executed several contracts, the last in April 1960. The agreements prior to that of 1960 were signed not only by the negotiat- ing parties but by the individual companies whose employees Peti- tioner represented. The record does not disclose whether such sign- ing by nonmember companies resulted from their delegation to NECA the right to represent them or whether it merely constituted a discre- tionary adoption of a pattern contract. As for the 1960 agreement, it was signed only by the Petitioner and NECA. However, with respect to those companies who were nonmembers at the time the petition was filed, the record discloses that in May 1958, Moltzen Electric and in early 1959, Acme Electric, Inc., Electric Service of, Carson, Service Electric, and Star Electric signed an "Agreement and Authorization" in which they designated NECA their bargaining representative, such agreement to be effective from date of signing until revoked according to its terms. None of the companies has revoked the authorization. Also, following the execution of the 1960 agreement one company, Acme Electric Co., in addition to NECA members and certain of the companies signing the "Agreement and Authorization," signed a let- ter of "Assent A" in which it not only agreed to abide by the terms of the contract but also designated NECA as its bargaining repre- sentative. As the Petitioner seeks to represent the employees of the above-named firms as part of the multiemployer unit and as these 'The companies so included are- Acme-Collins Co., Inc., Breaker Electric ; Brockway Electric ; Bud's Electric ; Calvert Electric ; Day & Night Electric ; Enterprise Electric ; Madison Electric ; Poletti Electric ; Schafer Electric ; Wilt Electric. 2 Shreveport-Bossier Cleaners & Laundries, Inc., 124 NLRB 534, 537; Local 49 of the Sheet Metal Workers Association at at. (New Mexico Sheet Metal Contractors Association, Inc.), 122 NLRB 1192, 1194. 552 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD firms have through the foregoing agreements, clearly delegated to NECA binding authority to represent them,8 we find that such com- panies are included in the multiemployer group.4 The Petitioner also seeks to include in the multiemployer unit em- ployees of some 15 firms on the ground that after negotiation of the 1960 contract the firms signed a letter of "Assent B" in which they agreed to be bound by the terms of that contract. The letter did not, however, contain a clear, express grant of authority to NECA to rep- resent the signers in collective bargaining. Accordingly, as the adop- tion of a contract does not constitute an unequivocal intent to be part of a multiemployer unit,5 we find that companies signing letter of "Assent B" only are not included in the requested Unit .6 In view of the foregoing and in substantial accord with the parties agreement on the composition of the unit, we find that the following employees of the individual employers who are members of NECA 7 or who have delegated authority to NECA to represent them for pur- poses of collective bargaining 8 constitute a unit appropriate for purpose of collective bargaining within Section 9(b) of the Act: all wiremen, linemen, cable splicers, communications men, electronic men, instrumentation men, wire equipment men, working foremen,9 appren- 6 Subsequent to signing the "Agreement and Authorization " Moltzen Electric joined HBA, but in so doing did not thereby confer on that organization the right to represent it for purposes of collective bargaining . Also Star Electric was formerly a member of NECA but resigned on April 3, 1960. However, it participated in bargaining for the 1960 agree- ment, the head of the Company being chairman of the NECA negotiating group. Follow- ing execution of the 1960 agreement , both Moltzen and Star gave proxies to HBA, which it did not exercise, to sign the 1960 agreement on their behalf. Insofar as Star's resigna- tion from NECA and both companies conferring authority on HBA to sign the 1960 agree- ment indicate an attempt to withdraw from the NECA multiemployer bargaining group such actions were not timely taken , having occurred after the commencement of negotia- tions on, or after the signing of, that agreement. Moreover, their adoption of the 1960 agreement shows that neither company intended to embark on a course of independent bargaining. Under these circumstances, we find that neither company has timely or effectively withdrawn the authority they conferred upon NECA to represent them as part of that association 's multfemployer group. See Retasi Associates, Ino., 120 NLRB 388, 394, 395. 1 The record shows that Acme Electric Co. signed letter of "Assent All and that Acme Electric, Inc., signed both that letter and the "Agreement and Authorization." However, the evidence indicates that Acme Electric Co. changed its name to Acme Electric Inc. If but one company is involved, it is, as we have held above, included in the unit. If there are, however, two companies, both are, we find included on the basis of having signed one or both of the above documents. 6 Molanelli et al. d/b/a Panaderia la Reguladora and Panaderia la Francesca et al., 118 NLRB 1010, 1014; Highway Transport Association of Upstate New York, Inc., et al., 116 NLRB 1718, 1720-1721. 6 Five employers-Baker Electric, Bongverg & Wehrheim, Farr Electric, Lakeshore Electric, and Nevada Electric-have authorized NECA to bargain for them. However, the Petitioner does not contend that they are part of the multfemployer unit and there is no evidence that they have either directly or through NECA actually participated in multfemployer bargaining. Accordingly, we shall not include them. T See footnote 1 supra. 6In accord with our findings above, the Employers thus included in the multfemployer unit are: Moltzen Electric, Star Electric, Electric Service of Carson, and Service Electric. Also included are Acme Electric , Inc, and/or Acme Electric Co. See footnote 4. 6In agreement wtih the parties , we find that the working foremen are not supervisors and are properly included in the unit since they have no authority to hire or discharge or make effective recommendations nor do they give other than routine direction to other employees. NEWARK ELECTRONICS CO., INC. 553 tices and grounds men, performing electrical work including installa- tion, erection, maintenance, repair or the moving, lifting or placing of electrical materials or equipment excluding all office clericals, guards, and supervisors 10 as defined in the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] 10 The parties, though conceding that general foremen have the power to hire and dis- charge, and are supervisors , urge that they be permitted to vote as their position changes from day to day. Whenever a job requires 10 or more employees, a general foreman is placed in charge. However, it appears from the record that no particular persons are regularly employed as general foremen. Rather there is a rapid and frequent change in the journeymen employees selected to serve in such capacity. Consequently, we find that the exercise of supervisory authority by an employee acting as a general foreman is irregular and sporadic and does not warrant finding that such employees are Ineligible to vote in the election. Newark Electronics Co., Inc. and Retail Clerks Union, Local 770, AFL-CIO, affiliated with Retail Clerks International Asso- ciation and New Furniture and Appliance Drivers, Warehouse- men & Helpers, Local 196, affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, Independent, Petitioners.' Cases Nos. 21-RC-6753 and P21-RC-6775. May 15, 1961 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before Jerrold H. Shapiro, 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 McCulloch and Members Leedom and Brown]. 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. A 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. 4. The Employer is engaged in the distribution and sale of elec- tronic parts and components. Its operation is primarily wholesale although it also makes some retail sales. The Petitioner in Case No. 21-RC-6753, herein called the Retail Clerks, seeks a unit of all em- 1 The names of both Petitioners appear as amended at the hearing. 131 NLRB No. 82.