I. Miller & Bro., Inc.

924 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD I. Miller & Bro. Inc. and Local 810, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Petitioner. Case No. 2-RC-11223. February 7, 1962 DECISION AND ORDER Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Louis A. Schneider, 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 Petitioner and Plastic Moulders and Novelty Workers Union,,Local 132, International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO, Herein referred to as the Intervenor, each refused to stipu- late to the status of the other as a labor organization within the mean- ing of the Act. As both the Petitioner and the Intervenor exist for the purpose of dealing with employers concerning wages, hours, and conditions of work,.we find that they are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 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 to represent a unit of the production and main- tenance employees of the Employer at its plant in Flushing, New York. The Employer and` the Intervenor contend, inter alia, that only a multiemployer unit is appropriate. The Employer has bargained collectively with the Intervenor as the representative of its production and maintenance employees since the Intervenor was certified. by the Board in 1949. Their most recent agreement was executed on July 6, 1959, and provided that it was to be effective until May 30,1961. On September i6, 1959, however, the Employer joined the Plastic Products Manufacturers Association, Inc., herein referred to as the Association, which ^ also bargains col- lectively with the Intervenor. The Employer on that date' executed a certificate of authorization and assumption, ratifying and agreeing 135 NLRB No. 92. I. MILLER & BRO. INC. 925- to be bound by the Association's existing agreement with the Inter- venor, which was effective until March 17,1960, but was automatically renewable until September 1, '1961., The Employer's' secretary- treasurer testified that he authorized the Association to handle all the Employer's labor relations. On October 1, 1959, the Employer, the Intervenor, and the Asso- ciation executed an agreement providing that as of that date the Employer-Intervenor contract was to terminate and the terms of the Association-Intervenor contractwere,to become binding, except (1) a provision for reemployment with backpay of any discharged worker whose discharge was found to be unjustifiable under the dispute ad- justment procedure provided*for by the Association-Intervenor con- tract; (2) a provision giving the Intervenor an option to reopen the contract in the event the cost-of-living, index, as published for Septem- ber 1960, reflected a cost-of-'living increase; (3) a provision requiring the, Intervenor's approval for contracting or subcontracting work; and (4) the expiration date, the parties agreeing that the contract would be binding upon the Employer until May 30, 1961. The record indicates, however, that the Employer' actually applied the terms of the Association-Intervenor contract in areas from which it had ob: tained specific exemptions, including application of the terms of the contract after May 30, 1961. '. On February 9, 1961, the members of the Association, including the Employer, 'met to consider a proposed new Association-Intervenor contract, which was to become 'effective September 1, 1961,. for a 3-year period, 'and which provided, inter alia, for a 5-cent=an-hour wage increase retroactive to May 1, 1961.' The Association's repre- sentative testified at the hearing, which was held in August 1961, that the Employer "voted for this and it was ratified by our membership and also by the union membership acid he [the Employer] did give the employees the five-cent increase." The Petitioner filed the subject petition seeking a unit,limited to the Employer's employees on February 16, 1961. As the Employer, however, had been bargaining as part of the Associationwide unit for over 16 months prior to the filing of the petition and has never in- dicated any intent to withdraw therefrom, we find the Petitioner's proposed unit inappropriate.' We shall therefore dismiss the petition.z [The Board dismissed the petition.] 'Motor Cargo, Inc, 108 NLRB 716, 717; Taylor and Boggis Foundry, Dtv;saon of The Con8olidated Iron-Steel Manufacturing Company, 98 NLRB 481, 482 21n view of our decision herein, we find it unnecessary to consider other grounds asserted by the Employer and the Intervenor for dismissal of the petition