Manufacturing Woodworkers Association of Greater New York, Inc., 1122 (1972)

Extract

---

Manufacturing Woodworkers Association of Greater New York, Inc., 1122 (1972)

Manufacturing Woodworkers Association of Greater New York, Inc. and District Council No. 9 of New York City of the International Brotherhood of Painters and Allied Trades, AFL-CIO and District Council of New York City and Vicinity of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO. Case 2-CA-11621

January 18, 1972 DECISION AND ORDER

BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS

FANNING AND JENKINS

On June 11, 1971, Trial Examiner George J. Bott issued the attached Decision in this proceeding.

Thereafter, the Respondent and the Party to the Contract filed exceptions and supporting briefs, and the General Counsel submitted a brief. The Charging Party filed an answering brief.

Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.

The Board has considered the record and the Trial Examiner's Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the Trial Examiner's rulings, findings,' and conclusions only to the extent consistent herewith.2

The complaint alleged, based on a charge filed August 5, 1968, that Respondent multiemployer association, in June 1968, contributed support and assistance to the Carpenters Union and refused to recognize the Painters Union as exclusive representative in an appropriate unit of all wood finishers employed in 21 of the 48 shops of the Respondent association, in violation of Section 8(a)(2) and (5) of the Act. Respondent's answer denied that the Painters Union was the exclusive representative of wood finishers, denied that the 21-shop unit was appropriate, admitted that it signed a contract with the Carpenters in June 1967 providing for exclusive recognition of Carpenters for all employees including the classification of 'wood finishers,' and denied the commission of unfair labor practices.3

A review of the history of bargaining shows that, for about a quarter of a century, the Carpenters reprei Respondent and the Party to the Contract, Carpenters, have excepted to certain credibility findings made by the Trial Examiner. It is the Board's established policy not to overrule a Trial Examiner 's resolutions with respect to credibility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence convinces us that the resolutions were incorrect . Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc., 91 NLRB 544, enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (C A. 3) We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings.

2 Respondent's request for oral argument is hereby denied as the record, including the exceptions and the briefs, adequately presents the issues and sented all production employees of the Respondent association4 except a group of 'wood finishers' who were represented by the Painters.5 The Carpenters and Painters bargained separately with Respondent and executed contracts which were different, particularly in their scale of wages and the length of the working day. The contracts were not tied together and no mention of one was made in the other. In 1962, the Brooklyn and Queens locals of the Painters Union joined District Council 9 and thereafter District Council 9 of the Painters represented all wood finishers who were members of the Painters Union in the association. The 1962-64 and the 1964-67

Painters contracts, covering about 21 shops (the shops were not individually mentioned and the contracts were signed by the association), contained inter alia, clauses for exclusive recognition of the Painters as the representation of 'wood finishers,' union security, and payments to the Painters industry fund.

Both the Carpenters and Painters contracts expired on June 30, 1967. On June 28, 1967, the Carpenters and Respondent reached an agreement on- a new contract which now, for the first time, mentioned and included the classification 'wood finishers.' The Carpenters claims ' it wanted this clause because of 'political upheaval' in the Painters and rumors that the Painters would raid the carpenter wood finishers in the Carpenters unit...

See the full content of this document

---