Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co.

MINNESOTA MINING AND MANUFACTURING COMPANY 419 tion in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Train- ing and Service Act of 1948 , as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces. This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting, and must not be altered , defaced, or covered by any other material. Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 720 Bulkley Building, 1501 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, Ohio, Telephone No. Main 1-4465, if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions. Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company and The Voice of Teamsters Democratic Organizing Committee, Petitioner. Case No. 4-RC-5334. September 6, 1963 ORDER AMENDING CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES On March 19, 1963, pursuant to a stipulation for a consent election, a representation election was held among the Employer's hourly ware- house employees at its Philadelphia Branch, 5698 Rising Sun Avenue, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. On March 27, 1963, the Petitioner, hav- ing received a majority of the valid votes cast,' was certified by the Board as the exclusive bargaining representative of the aforemen- tioned employees. Thereafter, on June 7, 1963, the Petitioner and Local 5, Interna- tional Union of United Brewery, Flour, Cereal, Soft Drink, and Dis- tillery Workers of America, AFL-CIO, herein sometimes called Local 5, jointly filed a motion to amend the certification "to designate Local 5, International Union of United Brewery, Flour, Cereal, Soft Drink, and Distillery Workers of America, AFL-CIO as the collective bar- gaining agent of said employees." The motion alleges that shortly after April 28, 1963, the Petitioner "decided to cease existing as a labor organization . . . ," and that on on May 31, 1963, with the approval of the Employer, a majority of the employees in the certified unit "voted for representation by Local 5 in an election conducted by the American Arbitration Association. The Employer has agreed to recognize Local 5 as the collective bar- gaining agent of this unit upon appropriate amendment of the certi- fication by the N.L.R.B." Thereafter, the Board requested that the Employer submit a state- ment of its position on the motion. On June 28, 1963, the Employer advised the Board that on May 31, 1963, the American Arbitration Association conducted an informal secret ballot at the Employer's plant among the employees in the unit for the purpose of determining whether the said employees desired to be represented by Local 5, and the Employer enclosed a letter, dated June 7, 1963, received from the 1 No other labor organization appeared on the ballot. 144 NLRB No. 44. 727-083-64-vol. 144-28 420 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Association stating that Local 5 had received a majority of the votes cast. The Employer further advised, that provided the Board is satisfied that a majority of the employees wish to affiliate with Local 5 and amends the certification, the Employer will recognize Local 5 as the employees' representative.a 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]. The Board has considered the matter and finds as follows : The Board does not permit the amendment of a certification by substituting the name of one labor organization for that of another where the motion constitutes an attempt to raise a question concerning representation.' However, in the circumstances of this case we find no such question and, hence, no reason why the motion should not be granted. Here, unlike the cases cited in footnote 3, below, no objec- tion has been advanced by anyone; the Petitioner is admittedly defunct and no longer desires to represent the employees; the employees them- selves, in an election conducted by a neutral and disinterested organ- ization, have clearly indicated their desire to be represented by Local 5; a and Local 5 had not been a party to the original Board-conducted election. Furthermore, the change is merely one of affiliation and is not the result of an alleged schism which might create confusion as to the identity of the labor organization which the employees desire to represent them. We therefore find that continuity of organization has been preserved and Local 5 is the successor and alter ego of the Voice as the representative of the employees in the unit.' Accord- ingly, we shall grant the motion and amend the certification.' [The Board amended the certification in Case No. 4-RC-5334 issued to The Voice of Teamsters Democratic Organizing Committee by sub- stituting therein "Local 5, International Union of United Brewery, 2 The Employer also stated that on June 3, 1963, it had been telegraphically advised by the United Industrial Workers of the Seafarers' International Union of North America, AFL-CIO, herein called Seafarers, that the Seafarers represented a majority of the em- ployees in the unit, and that on June 24, 1963, the Employer had telegraphed the Seafarers that "the matter is currently in litigation before the Board," but had received no reply. The Employer also served upon the Seafarers a copy of its June 28 reply to the Board. To date neither the Board nor the Fourth Region has received any communication from the Seafarers indicating an interest in the unit. 8 Gulf Oil Corporation, 109 NLRB 861 ; Weatherhead Company of Antwerp, 106 NLRB 1266; Wagner Electric Corporation, 91 NLRB 220. 'The record shows there were 16 eligible voters in the Board -conducted election and that in the Association-conducted election 13 employees in the unit voted 11 to 2 in favor of Local 5. 6 Cochran Co., Inc., 112 NLRB 1400 , 1408-1409, and footnote 9. See Procter and Gamble Manufacturing Company, 130 NLRB 633; New Jersey Oyster Planters and Packers Associatson, Inc., 101 NLRB 538, 540 . Cf. The East Ohio Gas Company, 140 NLRB 1269, and Harris-Woodson Co , Inc., 85 NLRB 1215, 1217 , 1218, affd. 179 F. 2d 720 (C.A. 4). O This is not to be construed as a recertification. INT'L BROTHERHOOD OF PULP, SULPHITE, ETC. 421 Flour, Cereal, Soft Drink, and Distillery Workers of America, AFL- CIO" for "The Voice of Teamsters Democratic Organizing Committee."] International Brotherhood of Pulp, Sulphite and Paper Work. ers, AFL-CIO and Solo Cup Company. Case No. 5-CB-517. September 9, 1963 DECISION AND ORDER On May 24, 1963, Trial Examiner George A. Downing issued his Intermediate Report in the above -entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Intermedi- ate Report. He also found that the Respondent had not engaged in certain other alleged unfair labor practices and recommended that these allegations of the complaint be dismissed. Thereafter, the Re- spondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a brief in support thereof.' 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]. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the In- termediate Report, the exceptions and the brief, and the entire record in this proceeding, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner with the following additions and modifications. 1. The Trial Examiner found, and we agree, that the Respondent, by restraining and coercing certain employees of Solo Cup Company in connection with the strike against that Company which began on November 1, 1962, violated Section 8(b) (1) (A) of the Act. The conduct which the Trial Examiner found to be unlawful was engaged in by Simms , president of the local formed by the Respond- ent at the company plant, and a member of the negotiating committee. In concluding that the Respondent was responsible for Simms' con duct, the Trial Examiner reasoned that, since the strike was the re- sult of the breakdown of bargaining negotiations, Simms, as a member of the negotiating committee, was clothed with authority to take action to compel the Company to accede to the Union 's demands; and since the acts of restraint and coercion found to be unlawful were performed 1 The Respondent's request for oral argument is hereby denied as the record , the excep- tions, and the brief adequately present the issues and the positions of the parties. 144 NLRB No. 48.