TWENTY-SIXTH ANNUAL REPORT - National Labor Relations Board

58 Twenty-sixth Annual Report of the National Labor Relations Board
c Multiemployer Units
Questions regarding the appropriateness of multiemployer units
were again presented in a number of cases In determining whether
requests for such a unit should be granted, the Board has continued
to look to the existence of a controlling bargaining history, and the
intent and conduct of the parties.
The Board had occasion during the past year to restate the pi inciple
that a single-employer unit is presumptively appropriate, and that to
establish a contested claim for a broader unit, a controlling histor y
of collective bargaining on a broader basis must be shown 98 It was
again pointed out that an essential element for a multiemployer unit
is an unequivocal manifestation by the individual employers of a
desire to be bound in futur e collective bargaining by group rather than
individual action 97
Heretofore, in a number of cases where a multiemployer bargaining
history with respect to one category of employees was not controlling
as to other employee categories, as to which there was no bargaining
history, a single-employer unit of the latter employees was found
appropriate 98 But in these cases, the single-employer units consisted
of employee categories which had internal homogeneity and cohesiveness
and could, therefore, stand alone as appropriate units
However, in two cases during the year, the Board found that the
employees sought were "a miscellaneous grouping of unrepresented
employees lacking any internal homogeneity or cohesiveness," and that
separate residual units of such employees were therefore Inappropriate
99 The Board pointed out that in order for the proposed units
to be residual the would have had to be coextensive with the multiemployer
unit since, otherwise, they would constitute only a segment
of the residual group
An employer may withdraw from multiemployer bargaining and
thereby reestablish his employees in separate appropriate units A
single-employer unit will be deemed appropriate in such circumstances
when "the employer, at an appropriate time, manifests an
intention to withdraw from group bargaining and to pursue an in-
"John Brenner Co, 129 NLRB 894, Greater St Louis Automotive Timmer+, & Up
holaterers Assn, 131 NLRB No 11
B1 Morgan Linen Service, Inc , 131 NLRB No 58, Northern Nevada Chapter, National
Electrical Contractors Assn., 131 NLRB No 74, where nonmembers of an employer association
were excluded from a multtemployer unit because their signed letter of assent
ngteeing only to be bound in the association's contract did not contain a cle q l , express
grant of authority to the association to represent the signers of the letter In collective
bargaining
98 See, e g, Joseph E Seagram ci Sons, Inc • 101 NLRB 101 (1952) , Continental Baking
Co, 100 NLRB 33 (1954)
"The Los Angeles Steller Haton Hotel, 129 NLRB I -149 ifoladay Hotel, i il NLRB
No 20