Gasland, Inc.

GASLAND, INC. Good Hope Industries, Inc., d/b/a Gasland, Inc. and Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers International Union, AFL-CIO. Case 1-CA-11987 December 6, 1978 SUPPI.EMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER By CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS JI NKINS AND Ml RPHIY On July 25, 1977. the National Labor Relations Board issued its Decision and Order' in the above- entitled proceeding, in which it affirmed Administra- tive lIaw Judge Thomas D. Johnston's finding that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, by refus- ing to recognize and bargain collectively with the Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers International Union, AFI--CIO, hereinafter referred to as OCAW, follow- ing the affiliation of the Gasland Employees' Associ- ation with that labor organization. On February 16, 1978, the Board notified the parties that it had decid- ed, sua sponte, to reconsider its Decision. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. Having again reviewed the record in this proceeding, we hereby reaffirm our previous Decision. This case involves the affiliation of a small inde- pendent labor organization with a large international Union. Prior to mid-June 1976, the 20 trailer drivers employed by Respondent at its Springfield. Massa- chusetts, facility 2 were represented for the purposes of collective bargaining by the Gasland Employees' Association, hereinafter referred to as the Associa- tion. Respondent and the Association were parties to a collective-bargaining agreement covering these unit employees effective from January 1, 1976, to Decem- ber 31, 1977. Sometime in April 1976, the Association's president, Aldo Fiorini, contacted Frank Micale, a representative of OCAW, regarding affiliating the Association with OCAW. Thereafter, several meetings between representatives of OCAW and the Association's officers and members oc- curred, culminating in a vote on June 13, 1976, to affiliate the Association with OCAW. The Administrative Law Judge found, and we agree, that a substantial majority of Respondent's 1 230 NLRB 1132. 2 The designated bargaining unit consists of all truckdnvers employed by Respondent at its Spnngfield, Massachusetts, facilit), excluslse of office clerical employees. professional emplosees, guards and all supervisors as defined in Sec. 2(11) of the Act. employees in the bargaining unit selected OCAW as their bargaining representative and that that selec- tion was made by means of a procedurally valid pro- cess. Thus, the record reveals that Respondent's 20 employees in the designated unit, all of whom were Association members, were afforded sufficient no- tice, the opportunity for discussion, and, finally, the opportunity to vote in a secret-ballot election on the issue of whether or not they desired affiliation with OCAW. That election resulted in a tally of 15 votes in favor of affiliation, with no dissenting votes cast. Based on this evidence of the employees' desire to be represented by OCAW and on the employees' right to bargain collectively through the representative of their own choosing guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act, the Administrative Law Judge concluded that OCAW is the "successor" to the Association and must be accorded recognition as such by Respon- dent. We agree. Once the unit employees perfected the affiliation of their labor organization with OCAW via a method employing adequate procedural safeguards, the As- sociation in effect became OCAW. It then follows that the change in name of the employees' bargaining representative from Gasland Employees' Association to OCAW neither relieves Respondent of its bargain- ing obligations nor releases it from its contractual commitments to the Union. Rather, the Association continued in the form and under the name of OCAW, and Respondent is accordingly obliged to recognize and bargain with that labor organization as the exclusive representative of its employees in the designated unit, as well as to honor its collective- bargaining agreement with it. That the Gasland Employees' Association and OCAW are in fact the same bargaining entity, with the former now functioning as the latter, is further indicated by certain other factors. For instance, In- ternational representatives of OCAW assured the Association's officers and members in the preaffilia- tion meetings that they would continue to operate as their own independent union and that the Gasland employees would represent themselves as a separate unit of the OCAW organization. These assurances were honored following the affiliation, with the Gas- land organization continuing in the form of a sepa- rate unit within a local of OCAW. As such, the Gas- land employees elect their own officers, have regular membership meetings attended only by the Gasland drivers, and are entitled to negotiate their own con- tracts, which are subject to ratification only by the employees within the unit. They also file their own grievances and process them up to the arbitration stage. Moreover, the officers of the Gasland unit within OCAW are the same individuals who were the 611 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD officers of the Association. Thus, the unit employees continue to retain their organizational unit autonomy under the same leadership and continue to honor ful- ly their preaffiliation contract with Respondent as well. The unit employees have therefore enjoyed con- tinuity of their collective-bargaining representation following the affiliation action. See New Orleans Pub- lic Service, Inc., 237 NLRB 919 (1978); Quemet- co, Inc., a Subsidiary of RSR Corporation, 226 NLRB 1398 (1976); Newspapers, Inc., Publishers of the Austin American and the Austin Statesman, 210 NLRB 8 (1974), enfd. 515 F.2d 334 (5th Cir. 1975); The Ham- ilton Tool Company, 190 NLRB 571 (1971) (Member Jenkins dissenting on other grounds). Respondent has asserted that, because the postaf- filiation bargaining request made by Fiorini in a let- ter dated June 14, 1976, was not made exclusively on behalf of the Internationl Union, no valid demand was made upon which a finding of an unlawful refus- al to bargain by Respondent might be based. Re- spondent has likewise asserted that, because the com- plaint as finally amended at the hearing 3 alleges that the unit employees' exclusive bargaining representa- tive is the Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers Interna- tional Union, AFL-CIO, and its Local 8-766, whereas the employees voted to affiliate only with the International Union, it is inappropriate to find that Respondent unlawfully refused to bargain with OCAW based on these pleadings. Similarly, Respon- dent maintains that it is without adequate notice as to the exact identity of the entity with which it is obliged to bargain due to the discrepancy between the employee vote to affiliate with the International Union, the affiliation notice and bargaining demand which included Local 8-766 in the name of the labor organization requesting Respondent to meet and bar- gain, and the Administrative Law Judge's finding that it is the International Union alone which is the "successor" to the Association. We have found, and find, no merit in Respondent's contentions in this regard. Fiorini, after receiving no response to his June 14 letter requesting a meeting and informing Respon- dent of the Association's affiliation with OCAW. was referred to, and spoke with, Respondent's attorney, Ballantyne, whom he also orally informed of the Association's affiliation action. Ballantyne's re- sponse, however, was not that Respondent would not 3 The original complaint alleged that the Oil, Chemical & Atomic Work- ers International Union, AFL-CIO, was the representative of the employees with which Respondent had unlawfully refused to bargain. At the hearing the complaint was amended to allege that Local 8-766, Oil. Chemical & Atomic Workers International Union. AFL-CIO. was the representative. and then was again amended at the hearing to allege that the representative was the Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers International Union. AFL CIO, and its Local 8-766. honor the bargaining request because it was made by Local 8-766 whereas the International Union was the labor organization with which the employees had voted to affiliate, but, rather, simply that Respondent would not recognize an affiliation with the Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers. Ballantyne further stated that Respondent remained willing to meet with Fiorini as a representative of the Gasland Em- ployees' Association. Respondent's refusal to meet and bargain with Fiorini in his capacity as an officer of OCAW was therefore based not on any claim of faulty request or lack of authority of the local union to make the request on behalf of the International Union, but on a refusal to recognize any affiliation of the Association with OCAW. If Respondent had any doubts about the authority of the local union to re- quest bargaining on the International's behalf, it had but to raise that question. However, Respondent made no such inquiry as to the authority of Local 8- 766 to represent the International Union. Moreover, Respondent refused to meet with Fiorini and Frank Micale because Micale was identified as an OCAW International representative. In these circumstances, we find Respondent is estopped to assert later that its refusal to meet with the union representatives was justified because the local union had no authority to request bargaining for the OCAW International Union, with whom the employees had voted to affili- ate. Argus Optics, A Division of Argus, Inc., 210 NLRB 923, 924 (1974); Mutual Coal Company, et al., 181 NLRB 564, 567 (1970). Nor do we find the bargaining demand made by Fiorini, identifying himself therein as the vice presi- dent of Local 8-766, OCAW, AFL-CIO-CLC, in- consistent with the finding that the OCAW Interna- tional Union is the successor to the Gasland Employees' Association. Article II of the constitution of the Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers Internation- al Union, adopted October 18, 1975, states as fol- lows: Section 5. Newly organized groups of workers obtaining membership in the Union may be as- signed to membership in an already existing Lo- cal Union when feasible, upon acceptance of the existing Local Union, or shall be issued a char- ter as a new Local Union by authorization of the International President. Richard Nickerson, president of Local 8-766, testi- fied that the local union's executive board specifical- ly voted to accept the affiliation of the Gasland driv- ers unit with the local union. Based on the above, we find that the International Union was clearly em- powered under the terms of its constitution to admin- istratively assign newly organized groups of employ- 612 GASLAND, INC. ees to a local union and that Local 8-766 of OCAW accepted the affiliation of the Gasland drivers unit with that organization. We therefore infer that the International Union assigned the newly affiliated Gasland drivers unit to Local 8-766, in accordance with the provisions of its constitution, and that the Gasland drivers unit functions as a separate compo- nent of Local 8-766 within the organizational frame- work of OCAW. Thus, neither the relationship of the Gasland drivers unit with Local 8-766 nor the inclu- sion of that local's name in the Union's bargaining demand upon Respondent is inconsistent with the Association's affiliation with the International Union. Accordingly, we conclude that Respondent, by refusing to recognize and bargain with the Union following its affiliation action, violated Section 8(aX5) and (I) of the Act. On the basis of the foregoing, we hereby reaffirm our original findings, conclusions of law, and Order. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re- lations Board hereby reaffirms its original Decision and Order in this proceeding and orders that the Re- spondent, Good Hope Industries, Inc., d/b/a Gas- land, Inc., Springfield, Massachusetts, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Board's original Order (230 NLRB 1132). 613