Welfare and Pension Funds

14 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Welfare and Pension Funds and Local 2529, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case 13-RC- 11808 August 7, 1969 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS FANNING AND ZAGORIA Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a hearing was held before Howard I. Malkin, Hearing Officer. The Petitioner filed a brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel. The Hearing Officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds: 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act, and it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. 2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain employees of the Employer. At the hearing the Employer raised the question whether the Petitioner has the capacity to represent the employees in question because of a possible conflict of interest. We have carefully considered this question and have come to the conclusion that there is a conflict of interest sufficient to preclude the Petitioner from representing the Employer's employees for the following reasons: The Employer is an unincorporated association administering employer and employer-union trust funds in Illinois and Iowa. Each fund has a separate board of trustees, those established by collective-bargaining agreements having equal representation by local unions and employers. The Employer's chief administrative employee, Walker, is responsible to an administrative committee of 5 trustees of the Carpenters Welfare Fund of Illinois. This fund, and the Carpenters Pension Fund of Illinois, were established and are administered for the benefit of the members of various of the Petitioner's sister locals, and are responsible for about 80 percent of the Employer's receipts and 50 to 60 percent of its costs. The Petitioner is a "semi-beneficial" local recently chartered by the Carpenters Union for the purpose of representing the employees of the Employer . The record indicates that the Petitioner, as a semi-beneficial local, is not required to submit any collective agreement which it might negotiate to the parent Carpenters Union for approval . Further, the Petitioner does not qualify for strike benefits from the parent . However, the record additionally shows that although not required , the Petitioner may join a Carpenters' State or District Council; may obtain a professional negotiator without cost from the parent upon request, and is considered to be a subordinate body under the parent's constitution and bylaws . The parent' s constitution, in turn , provides in section 6D that: The United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America shall have the right to establish supervision over and to conduct the affairs of any subordinate body (including the removal of any or all officers of such subordinate body ) to correct financial irregularities or to assure the performance of collective bargaining agreements and the responsibility of the subordinate body as a bargaining agent or to protect the interests and rights of the members or whenever the affairs of the subordinate body are conducted in such a manner as to be detrimental to the welfare of the members and to the best interests of the United Brotherhood. . . . (Emphasis supplied.) In these circumstances, we believe that the Petitioner is not competent to bargain concerning the terms and conditions of employment which would govern the Employer's employees. As the Board has stated in previous cases, "a union must approach the bargaining table with the single-minded purpose of protecting and advancing the interests of the employees who have selected it as their bargaining agent and there must be no ulterior purpose."' Thus, where, as here, a union has direct and immediate allegiances which can fairly be said to conflict with its function of protecting and advancing the interests of the employees it represents, it cannot be a proper representative.' Accordingly, we shall dismiss the petition herein. ORDER It is hereby ordered that the petition in this case be, and hereby is, dismissed. 'Oregon Teamsters' Security Plan Office, 119 NLRB 207, 211-212; see also Bausch and Lomb Optical Company, 108 NLRB 1555, 1559. 'See General Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America , Local 249, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs. Warehousemen and Helpers of America, and Office and Clerical Employees, Local 72, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Petitioner, 139 NLRB 605. 178 NLRB No. 3