A. O. Smith Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 1, 1954

107 N.L.R.B. 1415 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

A. O. SMITH CORPORATION 1415
Agreement settling the Detroit strike was not reached until
June 24. On the following day, Frank went to Bellefontaine and
made his announcement. The agreement ending the Detroit
strike was forma ly signed on June 26.
In the light of 11 these circumstances, we find that the Em-
ployer was following a normal business course in having Frank
announce the benefits at Bellefontaine immediately after agree -
ment was reached in Detroit. We do not believe that it was
under any obligation to depart from such a course by deferring
the announcement until after the election, because of the fortu-
itous circumstance that on the very day agreement was reached
in Detroit the Employer learned that the Board had directed an
election within 30 days at Bellefontaine. Accordingly, we reject
the hearing officer ' s recommendation that the election be set
aside and we hereby overrule the Petitioner's objections.
As we have overruled the objections to the election, and as
the tally of ballots shows that the Petitioner lost the election,
we shall issue a certification of results of election to that
effect.
[The Board certified that a majority of the valid ballots was
not cast for International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft
& Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW -CIO, and
that the said labor organization is not the exclusive represent-
ative of the production and maintenance employees at the Em-
ployer' s Bellefontaine , Ohio, plant.
A. O. SMITH CORPORATION and LOCAL 167, AMERICAN
FEDERATION OF TECHNICAL ENGINEERS, AFL, Peti-
tioner . Case No. 13-RC-3570. March 1, 1954
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Virginia M.
McElroy, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made
at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby
affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning
of the Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent
certain employees of the Employer.
3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the
representation of employees of the Employer within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, for the
following reasons:
107 NLRB No. 278
1416 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Employer and the Intervenor , Technical Engineers
Association, contend that their current contract ' is a bar to
the instant proceeding. The contract was negotiated and exe-
cuted by the Intervenor and was subsequently ratified by its
local organization - -Technical Unit, A. O. Smith Corporation,
Kankakee Works--herein called Technical Unit.2 The Peti-
tioner contends that the contract is not abar on the alternative
grounds that (1) the Technical Unit is defunct or (2) a schism
has occurred in the ranks of the Intervenor and the Technical
Unit.
The Intervenor formerly was affiliated with the American
Federation of Labor , herein called the AFL . Because of certain
conflicts between officers of the Intervenor and the AFL, the
Intervenor disaffiliated from the AFL in May 1951 and was
organized as an independent national union. The membership
of the Technical Unit were opposed to the secession , desiring
to remain affiliated. Early in 1953, the Technical Unit began
to take active steps to secure reaffiliation with the AFL.'
On August 27, 1953, notices were duly circulated among the
members of the Technical Unit, informing them of a special
meeting to be held the next day where a "motion for disaffili-
ation [from the Intervenor would] be entertained " and also
informing them of another special meeting to be held on Sep-
tember 2 , 1953, in order to entertain a motion for new affili-
ation.
At the August 28 meeting , attended only by members, the 30
persons present voted unanimously to disaffiliate from the
Intervenor . The second special meeting of September 2, 1953,
was also attended by 30 members who voted unanimously to
affiliate with AFTE. Regular meetings of the Technical Unit
are held monthly and attended by 25 to 30 members; this con-
stitutes a quorum under the Technical Unit's bylaws. At the
second meeting , the members also adopted new bylaws and
elected the officers of the Technical Unit to be officers of the
new organization to be formed. On September 4, 1953, 66 of
the approximately 70 members of the Technical Unit approved
in writing the actions taken at the 2 special meetings.
1 The contract was executed April 8, 1953, and runs from January 26, 1953 , to January 25,
1955. It covers the employees here sought . The contract unit is composed of two units of
employees for which the Intervenor was certified in 1950 and 1952 , respectively.
2 Under the terms of the Intervenor ' s constitution and bylaws , the employees are members
of the Intervenor as well as being organized in a local unit.
$About April 1953 representatives of the Technical Unit contacted a representative of
American Federation of Technical Engineers , AFL, herein called AFTE, and requested
information as to means of affiliating with that organization . The AFTE representative in-
formed them, however, that he could not assist them until they had disaffiliated from the
Intervenor.
A. O. SMITH CORPORATION 1417
About September 2, 1953, the new organization received a
charter from the AFTE and was assigned the local number of
167, the Petitioner herein. The bank account of the Technical
Unit has been redeposited in the Petitioner's name and the
books and records of the former organization have been ac-
quired by the Petitioner.
On September 3, 1953, the Intervenor was informed that the
Technical Unit had voted to disaffiliate from it. In turn, the
Intervenor , on September 15, removed the officers of the
Technical Unit from their positions . Since September 3, the
Intervenor has held about 3 meetings of the Technical Unit,
which were conducted by a representative of the Intervenor. 4
While 3 or 4 members of the Technical Unit attended 1 meeting,
none attended the other 2 meetings . Since September 3, the
president of the Intervenor , pursuant to the terms of the con-
tract , has processed a grievance with the Employer. While
the president of the new local has attended several grievance
meetings since September 3, the Employer has refused to deal
with him as the representative of the new local . Both the Inter-
venor and the Petitioner have notified the Employer that they
desire to renegotiate wages pursuant to the terms of the con-
tract. ' The Employer is holding in escrow dues deducted under
the contract.
On September 3, 1953, the Petitioner requestedthe Employer
to bargain with it concerning a new contract . The Employer
refused to do so because of its existing contract with the In-
tervenor.
The Intervenor is the certified bargaining representative of
the employees covered by the contract , which it negotiated and
executed . We find that the Intervenor is still a functioning or-
ganization --ready , willing, and able to administer the contract,
and is still recognized by the Employer as the active represent-
ative of the employees . Under these circumstances , we do not
find any confusion as to the identity of the bargaining agent. In
view of the foregoing , we find that the contract is a bar to the
instant proceeding . 6 Accordingly, we shall dismiss the petition.
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
Member Rodgers took no part in the consideration of the
above Decision and Order.
4Previously, the meetings of the Technical Unit had been conducted by its own officers.
5 The Petitioner has indicated that it is willing to abide by the terms of the cur rent contract.
6 The Budd Company, 107 NLRB 116; Central Rufina, 105 NLRB 591.