U.S. Pipe & Foundry Co., 139 (1980)

U.S. PIPE & FOUNDRY COMPANY U.S. Pipe & Foundry Company and Winfrey Enterprises, Inc. and Teamsters Local Union # 515, an affiliate of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America. Case 1O-CA-13209

January 7, 1980 DECISION AND ORDER

BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS

PENELLO AND TRUESDALE

On September 26, 1979, Administrative Law Judge Robert C. Batson issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, the Charging Party filed exceptions and a supporting 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 attached Decision in light of the exceptions and brief and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to adopt his recommended Order.

ORDER

Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommended Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby orders that the complaint be, and it hereby is, dismissed in its entirety.

DECISION

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

ROBERT C. BATSON, Administrative Law Judge: The hearing in this proceeding, under the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C. '§ 151, et seq. (herein called the Act), was commenced before Administrative Law Judge John F. P. Corbley on September 25, 1978, at Chattanooga, Tennessee. On September 26, Judge Corbley adjourned the hearing sine die to permit the General Counsel to perfect service of the formal papers upon Winfrey Enterprises, Inc., a party to these proceedings. Prior to the resumption of the hearing, Judge Corbley died, and after due notice to all parties the hearing was resumed before me on April 16 and 17, 1979. The charge was filed by Teamsters Local Union #515, an affiliate of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America (herein called the Union) on November 2, 1977.' ' All relevant events in this case occurred in the calendar year 1977 and unless otherwise indicated all months and date%hereinafter are in 1977.

247 NLRB No. 12

The Acting Regional Director for Region 10 (Atlanta,

Georgia) issued a complaint and notice of hearing on April 14, 1978, alleging that U.S. Pipe & Foundry Company (herein called USP) and Winfrey Enterprises, Inc. (herein called Winfrey), herein jointly called Respondent, are joint employers of the unit of employees here involved, and that USP had violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by unilaterally and without notice to or consultation with the Union terminating a contractual relationship with Winfrey, causing the termination ofall unit employees.

I find USP and Winfrey to be joint employers of the employees in the unit here involved. I further find that USP gave the Union adequate notice of its contemplated termination of the contract with Winfrey which precipitated the termination of the unit employees, and, accordingly, has not violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.

All parties were afforded full opportunity to present evidence, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, to make oral argument, and to file briefs. Briefs were filed by counsel for the General Counsel and USP. Upon the entire record, including consideration of the briefs, and upon my observation of the testimonial demeanor of the witnesses, I make the following:

FINDINGS OF FACT

  1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT The complaint alleges, USP admits, and I find that at all times material herein USP is and has been a Delaware corporation with an office and place of business located at Chattanooga, Tennessee, where it is engaged in the manufacture and sale of soil pipe. During the 12-month period preceding the issuance of the complaint herein, USP sold and shipped finished products valued in excess of $50,000 directly to points located outside the State of Tennessee.

    Accordingly, I find that at all times material herein, USP has been an employer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act, engaged in a business affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.

  2. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED The complaint alleges, Respondent admits, and I find that at all times material herein the Union is and has been a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.

    Ill. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Background USP has for many years used the services of common carriers and leased drivers to ship its soil pipe to customers and other transportation services. In 1966 USP contracted with Merchants & Manufacturing Transfer Company to supply qualified drivers to it to drive tractors and trailers leased by USP from various sources. In that year the Union was certified in Case 10-CA-6676 as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of 'all over-the-road truck 139

    DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD drivers employed by the employer at its Chattanooga,

    Tennessee, operation, but excluding all other employees, office clerical employees, guards and supervisors, as defined in the Act.' Shortly after the certification, All-States Services of Chattanooga, Inc., (a Winfrey Enterprise) became a successor employer and, on June 23, 1966, negotiated the first collective-bargaining agreement. All-States was at some point succeeded by Winfrey Enterprises (a sole proprietorship), which in or about 1973 was succeeded by Winfrey Enterprises, Inc. Successive collective-bargaining agreements were negotiated; the most recent agreement was effective from April 2, 1977, to April 8, 1978.

    In late 1975 the Union filed a petition under Section 9(c) of the Act in Case 10-RC-10552 naming USP as the employer of the drivers it leased from Winfrey who were in the unit described in the collective-bargaining agreement then in effect. At or about the same time the Union filed another petition in Case 10-RC-10562 naming Winfrey as the employer of the same...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT