Saunders System Corp.

SAUNDERS SYSTEM CORP. 1047 other party. In this proceeding, however; the program concession of Superior was canceled by United in accordance with the decision of the arbitrator. It would ap- pear doubtful, therefore, that inasmuch as this was not a voluntary act of United Theatres in that its abiding by the arbitration award which resulted in Superior's losing its program concession was not the type of situation envisaged within the pro- scriptive purview of Section 8(e), because the cessation of business between United and Superior was not the result of an "agreement" but simply the result of the parties abiding by the arbitration award. See Bakery Wagon Drivers, Local No. 484, 137 NLRB 987, 995. Then, too, Respondent Union's insistence on adherence to the provisions of article IV, section 3, was not illegal as this contract clause was a total and complete prohibi- tion on all subcontracting. A contract which prohibits all subcontracting, the Board has stated, is not a violation of Section 8(e) but a legitimate device to protect the economic integrity of the bargaining unit.42 Moreover, the Respondent Union was not objecting to subcontracting as such but only where a subcontractor who was awarded a program concession by a signatory to the multiemployer bargaining agreement was not obtaining his program sales- men through the Union, as expressly provided for in the collective-bargaining agree- ment between the theatre and the Union. The basis for the Union's objection to program subcontractors not obtaining salesmen through the Union was not only the latent possibility that the working standards embodied in the Union's contract with the theatre owners might be undermined, but also to protect the work which tradi- tionally has belonged to program salesmen in the bargaining unit. A contract whose overriding purpose in limiting subcontracting to employers is to maintain working conditions equivalent to those in the contractual bargaining unit, as well as to protect the work of the unit employees, is primary in character and not proscribed by Sec- tion 8(e) absent a requirement for a union contract to enforce illegitimate demands against subcontractors.43 The Respondent Union's objective, therefore, was to pro- tect the legitimate economic interests of its member program salesmen and not just enforcing article IV, section 3, to force United Theatres to cease doing business with Superior. The language employed in this provision, as reasonably construed, im- poses no unlawful restraints, as the facts herein reveal that article IV, section 3 is "strictly germane to the economic integrity of the principal work unit." 44 It is found, therefore, based upon the entire record, that there is not substantial evidence to support the General Counsel's contention that Respondent Union's motive in entering into article IV, section 3 was for a reason proscribed by Section 8(e) of the Act. Accordingly, it is recommended that the complaint herein be dismissed in its entirety.45 42 Cardinal Industries, Inc., 1'36 NLRB 977 ; Pure Milk Association, 141 NLRB 1237. 48 Cf Drive-Thru Dairy, Inc., 145 NLRB 445. 44 District No. 9, International Association of Machinists v. N.L.R'B. (Greater St. Louis Automotive Trimmers & Upholsterers . Assn. ), 315 F. 2d 33 (C.A.D.C ), 51 LRRM 2496, 2498. See also Retail Clerks Union Local 770 v. N.L.R B. ( United States Hardware etc.), 296 F. 2d 368 , 373 ('C.AD.C.) ' 45 The conventional "conclusions of law" which are customarily repeated at this point are omitted as they will be found in the body of this Decision. Saunders System Corp.' and Lodge 804, District Lodge No. 34, International Association of Machinists , AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 9-RC-2651. September 14, 1964 DECISION AND ORDER AMENDING BARGAINING UNIT On December 29, 1955, the Regional Director for Region 9 issued a certification of representatives herein, certifying the Peti- 1 The Employer's name appears as amended at the hearing. 148 NLRB No. 106. 1048 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD tioner as the exclusive bargaining representative of the Employer's employees in the following unit : All garage employees of the Employer at its Third and Walnut Streets and 2955 Spring Grove Avenue, Cincinnati, Ohio, loca- tions, including mechanics, their helpers and garage servicemen, excluding office clerical employees, and all guards, professional employees and supervisors as defined in the Act, and all other employees. _ The current collective-bargaining agreement, and supplement thereto, effective from September 1, 1963, until September 1, 1964, covers all such employees at the Employer's present locations in Cincinnati. ' On May 20, 1964, the Petitioner filed a motion to amend bargaining unit, requesting that the Board amend or clarify the unit by includ- ing therein the Employer's new facility located in Hamilton, Ohio. The Employer filed a statement of opposition to motion, and on June 19, 1964, the Board remanded the-matter to the Regional Direc-, tor for the purpose of conducting a hearing to resolve the issues raised by the Petitioner's motion and the Employer's opposition thereto. A hearing was held on July 9, 1964, before Hearing Officer William T. George, Jr. 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 : • The Employer is engaged in-the business of renting and servicing automotive equipment. In December 1955 the Employer operated two garages, both of which were located in Cincinnati, one at Third and Walnut Streets and the other at 2955 Spring GroveAvenue, and the certification included the employees at both these locations. How- ever, about that time the Employer • closed the Third and Walnut Street garage and transferred the one employee located there to the Spring Grove Avenue location. Among the Employer's operations is the supplying of tractors and trailers to the Fuller Manufacturing Company at Falmouth, Ken- tucky, about 40 miles-from Cincinnati. As the Employer maintains no facility at Falmouth, it services this equipment by sending me- chanics from''the Spring Grove Avenue shop in Cincinnati to Fal- mouth; by bringing the equipment to'Spring Grove Avenue; or by having the work done.by an independent garage at Falmouth. At an undisclosed date, the Employer also entered into an agree- ment with Champion Paper Company whereby the Employer rented SAUNDERS SYSTEM CORP. 1049 trucks to Champion. and ' serviced. them at the Spring Grove Avenue garage, where the Employer also serviced other trucks which Cham- pion rented from another company. About May 1, 1963, Champion rented additional trucks, and the Employer opened a facility at Hamilton, Ohio, about 25 to 30 miles from its Cincinnati garage, to handle 'Champion's increased maintenance requirements. It is this facility which is in dispute herein. At Hamilton the Employer has had, in all, only two employees, neither of whom was transferred from Cincinnati; it has never had more than one employee there at a time. The single employee now at Hamilton does the same kind of work as that done at the Spring Grove Avenue garage and wears the same kind of uniform as that worn by its employees. Two or three times a week he drives to the Spring Grove Avenue garage in a company-owned service truck, con- fers with its shop foreman, picks up parts for trucks, and returns to Hamilton. Whenever the shop foreman'thinks it necessary, he goes to Hamilton to "check on" the operation there.. The Hamilton em- ployee generally determines his own hours of employment, because the work there is irregular and usually requires his presence on week- ends only. Prior to July 1 the Hamilton employee, like his predeces- sor, was carried on a separate payroll, but his wages were paid from the Cincinnati operation's petty cash. This was'changed as of July 1, but the record does not disclose in what manner. - At the time of the hearing, July 9, 1964, the Employer planned to open a third facility in July or August at Woodlawn, Ohio, midway between Cincinnati and Hamilton, or about 15 miles from both cities, to service trucks operated by the Goodwill Company. The Employer has made an agreement with the Petitioner that all the terms of the current collective-bargaining contract covering the Cincinnati em- ployees, will be applicable to employees at the new shop.' The Fal- mouth operation will be staffed, at least in part, by employees transferred from Cincinnati. It appears from the above that the Spring Grove Avenue shop is the Employer's base of operations for the area in and around Cin- cinnati and that its other. ocations are' merely branches or adjuncts thereof which the Employer' establishes and disestablishes as conven- ience dictates. Further, as the parties have agreed to the extension of the current contract to cover the new facility atWoodlawn, which is located about halfway between Cincinnati and Hamilton, the con- tract now includes all employees in the area except the single em- ployee at Hamilton. Yet he performs work previously performed at Spring Grove Avenue and now does the same kind of work as employees at that shop, which he' frequently visits for business pur poses, and he is subject to the supervision of its shop foreman. More- over, the Hamilton facility appears to be an ope'rative' arm of the 1050 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Spring Grove Avenue shop. In view of the foregoing, we find the Hamilton facility to be an accretion to the Spring Grove Avenue facility. We shall, therefore, grant the Petitioner's motion and amend the certification by including the Hamilton facility therein. [The Board amended the certification previously issued herein, by specifically including therein the facility of Saunders System Corp., located at Hamilton, Ohio.] Design Service Company, Inc. and Architectural & Engineering Guild, Local 66, American Federation of Technical Engineers, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 2-RC-13246. September 14, 1964 DECISION ON REVIEW AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION On April 21, 1964, the Regional Director for Region 2 issued a Decision and Order in this case, finding that the only appropriate unit was an overall unit of engineers and draftsmen employed at the Employer's New York City, New York, plant, and at various field locations on customers' premises in various parts of the country and dismissing the petition because the Petitioner had not submitted a sufficient showing of interest in such unit. Thereafter, the Petitioner, in accordance with the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, filed with the Board a timely request for review of such Decision on the ground that the Regional Director erred in not find- ing that the requested unit limited to the New York City plant is appropriate, and that his findings of fact were erroneous. On May 25, 1964, the Board, by telegraphic order, granted the request for review. 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 Fanning and Jenkins]. The Board has considered the entire record in the case with respect to the Regional Director's determination under review and makes the following findings : The Petitioner requests a unit of all engineers and draftsmen and all employees doing engineering and draftsmen's work at the Em- ployer's New York City plant, excluding all other employees.' The Employer contends that the only appropriate unit would also include similarly classified employees who are administratively attached to the New York City plant but who are working in the field at the 1 The Employer has other plants, not involved in this proceeding. 148 NLRB No. 105.