Peoples Gas System, Inc., 944 (1974)

Extract

---

Peoples Gas System, Inc., 944 (1974)

Peoples Gas System, Inc. and Teamsters Union Local 769, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,

Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America. Case 12-CA-6025

November 14, 1974 DECISION AND ORDER

BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS KENNEDY AND

PENELLO

On April 9, 1974, Administrative Law Judge Paul Bisgyer issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief, the General Counsel filed exceptions and a brief in support thereof, and the Respondent and Charging Party also filed answering briefs.

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 attached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge only to the extent consistent herewith.

Following a Board election, the Union was certified in September 1966. Thereafter, the parties entered into two successive 3-year contracts, the last being effective from March 29, 1970, to February 6, 1973.1 Pursuant to the Union's timely request to renegotiate the agreement, the parties held a total of six bargaining sessions between January 9 and February 14 but failed to reach an agreement. On April 23,

Respondent filed a representation petition with the Board and on May 1 informed the Union that Respondent would not engage in further bargaining until the Union had demonstrated by a Board-conducted election that it represented a majority of the unit employees.

The complaint alleges that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by its April 23 withdrawal of recognition from the Union as the exclusive bargaining representative of the unit employees, and by thereafter refusing to resume negotiations with the Union. The Administrative Law Judge concluded that Respondent had no reasonable or objective basis for questioning the Union's majority status and found the violations as alleged. We disagree.

The principle applicable to the present situation has long been established. After the certification year has run, an employer may lawfully withdraw recognii All dates herein are in 1973 unless otherwise noted tion from an incumbent union because of an asserted doubt of the union's continued majority, if its withdrawal occurs in a context free of unfair labor practices and is supported by a showing of objective considerations providing reasonable grounds for a belief that a majority of the employees no longer desire union representation.2 Here, Respondent engaged in no independent unfair labor practices, and the withdrawal of recognition occurred more than 6 years after the certification. Consequently, as the Administrative Law Judge quite properly viewed the problem, the issue to be resolved is whether or not 'objective considerations' existed, justifying Respondent's asserted doubt concerning the Union's majority status.

We find, in agreement with Respondent's contentions, more fully developed below, that the Employer had sufficient objective bases for asserting a reasonably based doubt of the Union's majority status based on: the sharp decrease in the number of duescheckoff authorization cards over the past 3 years;

the unusual conduct of the Union during negotiations; and the changes in the composition of the bargaining unit.

The Relevant Facts 1. Decrease in the number of dues-checkoff authorization cards over the past 3 years The record shows that there was a severe and dramatic decrease in the number of dues-checkoff authorization cards 3 on file with the Company between February 7, 1970,4 and April 23. According to the uncontroverted testimony of Jesse Hogg, the Respondent's attorney, on April 23, the Company had in its possession dues-checkoff authorization cards from about 72 employees out of a bargaining unit of 177 or 179 employees, including probationary employees.' This constituted only 39 percent of the total unit. By contrast, in February 1970, the percentage of all unit employees on dues checkoff, including probationary employees, had been approximately 76 percent. The dropoff is similarly dramatized if probationary e...

See the full content of this document

---