DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
United McGill Corporation and Charles Reed and
McGill Labor Committee, Party to the Contract.
Case 9-CA-10929
April 3, 1978
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS
JENKINS AND MURPHY
Upon a charge duly filed the General Counsel of
the National Labor Relations Board, by the Regional
Director for Region 9, issued a complaint and notice
of hearing March 23, 1977, and an order amending
complaint on July 7, 1977, against United McGill
Corporation (hereafter called Respondent), which
were duly served on the parties. The complaint
alleges that Respondent has engaged in, and is
engaging in, unfair labor practices within the mean-
ing of Section 8(a)(1) and (2) and Section 2(6) and (7)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended.
Respondent filed an answer denying the commission
of unfair labor practices.
On October 21, 1977, the parties executed a
stipulation of facts and jointly moved to transfer this
proceeding to the Board. They waived a hearing
before an Administrative Law Judge and the is-
suance of an Administrative Law Judge's Decision
and recommended Order, and agreed to submit the
case to the Board for findings of fact, conclusions of
law, and Order, based on a record consisting of the
motion to transfer the proceeding to the Board, the
stipulation of facts, and the attached exhibits thereto.
On December 21, 1977, the Board approved the
stipulation and ordered the case transferred to the
Board, granting permission for the filing of briefs.
Thereafter, the General Counsel and the Respondent
filed 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.
Upon the stipulation, the briefs, the exhibits, and
the entire record, the Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
Following an election within a production and
maintenance unit, involving the Sheet Metal Work-
ers' International Association (hereafter SMW) and
the Teamsters, a runoff election was held between
the Teamsters and no union. A majority of votes
were cast for no union and the Board certified the
results on January 23, 1976.
After the runoff election the Teamsters, SMW, and
International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace
& Agricultural Implement Workers of America
(hereafter UAW), engaged in vigorous organizing
efforts by handbilling and soliciting authorization
cards among employees in the same production and
maintenance unit.
The SMW demanded recognition in letters re-
ceived by Respondent on May 18 and 26, 1976. The
May 26 letter was submitted with authorization cards
allegedly signed by a majority. The cards were placed
in Respondent's safe in a sealed envelope that was
returned the next day, unopened, to an employee
representative of SMW. There were 100 cards.
The UAW requested recognition in a letter re-
ceived by Respondent on May 27, 1976. The UAW
offered, but never actually presented to Respondent,
authorization cards allegedly signed by a majority of
unit employees. There were 93 cards.
The UAW and the SMW again demanded recogni-
tion by telegram respectively dated July 28, 1976,
and August 4, 1976. Recognition was also demanded
by the McGill Labor Committee (hereafter the
Committee) on August 16, 1976, in the form of a
petition authorizing representation, allegedly signed
by a majority of unit employees. There were 105
signatures.
After Respondent compared the signatures on the
Committee's petition with those on employee appli-
cations it recognized the Committee as the exclusive
bargaining representative of employees, on August
18, 1976. On September 13, 1976, the employees
ratified a contract negotiated by Respondent and the
Committee, effective from August 30, 1976, to
August 29, 1978.'
There were 209 employees in the unit on August
18, 1977, the date Respondent recognized the Com-
mittee.
A. Contentions of the Parties
Respondent contends its recognition of the Com-
mittee was based on a clear demonstration of
majority support obtained without unlawful assis-
tance, whereas the SMW and UAW claims were
"unsupportable and without foundation in fact."
The General Counsel argues that uncoerced major-
ity support was not established because a significant
number of the signatories to the Committee's petition
signed authorization cards on behalf of at least one
other union. Further, Respondent demonstrated bad
faith by its precipitate recognition of the Committee
when it had knowledge of intense organizational
I The contract does not have a union-secunty clause.
235 NLRB No. 76
564
UNITED McGILL CORP.
activity by other unions whose recent demands for
recognition it had ignored.
B. Analysis and Conclusions
Had Respondent checked the cards submitted by
SMW and those offered by UAW, with the Commit-
tee's petition, it would have found dual and triple
signers. Approximately 99 of the 105 signatories to
the Committee's petition had also signed an authori-
zation card for at least one other union. Where an
employee signs an authorization card for each of two
or more unions, it is settled that, absent evidence of
the signer's intent, none of the authorizations is valid
because it is impossible to determine which union the
employee would designate as the exclusive bargain-
ing representative.2 Hence, while Respondent recog-
nized the Committee on the barest majority-105 of
209 employees-the signatures are not valid indica-
tors of the employees' choice of a bargaining repre-
sentative and the Committee had not obtained
majority status when it was recognized by Respon-
dent.3 Furthermore, Respondent precipitately recog-
nized the Committee without a card check by an
impartial third party, and without making any effort
to cross-check signatures against the cards from the
two other unions that had demanded recognition, or
offering them the opportunity to participate in the
card check for the Committee. In view of the
foregoing we find that Respondent violated the Act
as alleged.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
i. Respondent, an Ohio corporation, is an em-
ployer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act.
2. Respondent, which during the past 12 months
purchased and received goods and materials valued
in excess of $50,000 from points outside the State of
Ohio, is engaged in commerce and in operations
affecting commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
3. The McGill Labor Committee, the Sheet Metal
Workers' International Association, and Internation-
al Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricul-
tural Implement Workers of America, are labor
organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
4. By recognizing and executing a contract with
the McGill Labor Committee as the exclusive bar-
gaining representative of its employees, at the time
when that labor organization did not enjoy majority
status, Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in
2 Hi Tamp Inc., a Division of Beatrice Foods Co., et at, 203 NLRB 753
(1973).
3 We find it unnecessary to consider whether or not Respondent would
have violated Sec. 8(aX2) under the doctrine of Midwest Piping and Supply
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(a)(2) and (1) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent engaged in unfair
labor practices, we shall require it to cease and desist
therefrom and to take certain affirmative action
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
We shall order Respondent to withdraw all recog-
nition from the Committee as representative of any
of its employees for the purpose of dealing with it
concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of
pay, hours of employment, and conditions of em-
ployment, unless and until that labor organization
demonstrates its exclusive majority representative
status pursuant to a Board-conducted election
among the unit employees. We shall also order
Respondent to cease and desist from giving any force
or effect to the collective-bargaining agreement
executed and maintained, but nothing herein shall be
construed as requiring Respondent to vary any wage,
hour, seniority, or other substantive feature of its
relations with its employees which was established in
the performance of that contract.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent,
United McGill Corporation, Columbus, Ohio, its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Contributing support to the McGill Labor
Committee or to any other labor organization of its
employees.
(b) Recognizing the McGill Labor Committee as
the representative of any of its employees for the
purpose of dealing with Respondent concerning
grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours
of employment, or other conditions of employment,
unless and until the said labor organization shall
have demonstrated its exclusive majority representa-
tive status pursuant to a Board-conducted election
among the Company's employees.
(c) Giving effect to the collective-bargaining agree-
ment dated August 30, 1976, between Respondent
and the McGill Labor Committee, or to any exten-
sion, renewal, or modification, provided, that nothing
in this Decision and Order shall require Respondent
to vary or abandon any wage, hour, seniority, or
other substantive feature of its relations with its
Co., Inc., 63 NLRB 1060(1945), even had it recognized in good faith a union
which had received otherwise valid authorization cards from a majonty of
employees.
565
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
employees established in the performance of that
agreement, or to prejudice the assertion by employ-
ees of any rights they may have thereunder.
(d) In any like or related manner interfering with,
restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act,
except to the extent that such rights may be affected
by an agreement requiring membership in a labor
organization as a condition of employment as autho-
rized in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which
the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Withdraw and withhold all recognition from the
McGill Labor Committee as the exclusive bargaining
representative of its employees for the purpose of
dealing with Respondent concerning grievances,
labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employ-
ment, or other conditions of employment, unless and
until the said labor organization shall have demon-
strated its exclusive majority representative status
pursuant to a Board-conducted election among
Respondent's employees.
(b) Post at its Columbus, Ohio, plant involved
herein copies of the attached notice marked "Appen-
dix." 4 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by
the Regional Director for Region 9, after being duly
signed by Respondent's authorized representative,
shall be posted by Respondent immediately upon
receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60
consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places,
including all places where notices to its employees
are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be
taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are
not altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 9, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order,
what steps Respondent has taken to comply here-
with.
4 In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United
States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order
of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a
Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board."
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT contribute support to the McGill
Labor Committee or to any other labor organiza-
tion of the employees.
WE WILL NOT recognize the McGill Labor
Committee as the representative of any employees
for the purpose of dealing concerning grievances,
labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of
employment, or other conditions of employment,
unless and until the said labor organization shall
have demonstrated its exclusive majority repre-
sentative status pursuant to a Board-conducted
election among the employees.
WE WILL NOT give effect to the collective-
bargaining agreement dated August 30, 1976,
between United McGill Corporation and the
McGill Labor Committee, or to any extension,
renewal, or modification, provided, that nothing in
this Decision and Order shall require us to vary or
abandon any wage, hour, seniority, or other
substantive feature of relations with employees
established in the performance of that agreement,
or to prejudice the assertion by employees of any
rights they may have thereunder.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of
the Act, except to the extent that such rights may
be affected by an agreement requiring member-
ship in a labor organization as a condition of
employment as authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of
the Act.
WE WILL withdraw and withhold all recogni-
tion from the McGill Labor Committee as the
exclusive bargaining representative of employees
for the purpose of dealing concerning grievances,
labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of
employment, or other conditions of employment,
unless and until the said labor organization shall
have demonstrated its exclusive majority repre-
sentative status pursuant to a Board-conducted
election among the employees.
UNITED MCGILL
CORPORATION
566