Allis-Chalmers Manufacturing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 9, 1943

50 N.L.R.B. 306 (N.L.R.B. 1943)

k
In the. Matter of ALLIS-CHALMERS MANUFACTURING COMPANY and
ALLIS_CHALMERS WORKERS, DISTRICT 50, UNITED MINEWORKERS OF
AMERICA 1 1,
Case No.i R-5325.Decided June 9, 1943
Mr. Lester Asher,, for the Board. '
Mr. John L. Waddleton , of Milwaukee , Wis., for the Company.
Mr. Oscar F. Carlstrom, of Aledo, Ill., and Messrs . Joe Marchesi
and Hugh White, of Springfield , Ill., for District 50.
Meyers and Meyers, by Mr. Ben Meyers , of Chicago , Ill,, for the
C.I:O.
Mr. Arthur Le?,'of counsel to the Board.
,'DEC iSION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE -
Upon a petition duly filed by Allis-Chalmers Workers, District, 50,
United Mine Workers of America, herein called District 50, alleging
that a question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the rep-
resentation of employees , of, Allis-Chalmers Manufacturing Com-
pany, Springfield , Illinois , herein called the Company , the National
Labor Relations Board provided for an appropriate hearing upon due
notice before Mortimer Reimer, Trial Examiner. Said hearing was
held at Springfield , Illinois, on , May 10, 1943. ' A£ the commencement
of the hearing , the Trial Examiner granted a motion of 'Local 120,
United Farm 'Equipment ' & Metal Workers 'of America,, affiliated
with the Congress of Industrial Organizations , herein called the
C. I. 0., to intervene . The Company , District 50,, and the C. I. Q.,
appeared and participated in the hearing, and all parties were afforded
full opportunity to be heard ,' to gxamine and cross -examine witnesses,
and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues. At the close of the
hearing counsel for the C. I. O. moved to. dismiss the petition, and
decision thereon was reserved for the Board . For reasons appearing
below, the motion is granted . The Trial Examiner 's rulings made at
the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
50 N. L. R. B., No. 44.
306 ,'
1
I
I
\.
ALLIS-CHALMtERS MANUFACTURING COMPANY 307-
I
Following the hearing District 50 and the, C. I. •O., filed briefs whichI:-
the Board has' considered.
Upon'the entire record in' the case, the board makes the following:.
FINDINGS 6F FACT
I., THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Allis-,Chalmers Manufacturing Company is k Delaware corporation
and operates nine plants located' in the States of Wisconsin, Pennsyl-
vania, Ohio, Illinois, Massachusetts, California, and Indiana. The
Illinois plant of the Company, located at Springfield, Illinois, is the
only plant involved in this proceeding. At the Springfield plant the-
Company is engaged 'in the .manufacture, distribution, and sale of
tractors and parts, and in the manufacture of war materials. During
the year 1942, the Company purchased raw materials, principally
iron, fabricated steel, steel'castings, engines, and electrical equipment,,
valued at more than $8,000,000.. Approximately 50 percent of these
raw materials was shipped to the Springfield plant'from'points out-
side the State of Illinois. During the same period, the Company
sold finished products manufactured at Springfield amounting in
value to over $12,500,000, of which approximately 90 percent repre-
sented shipments to points outside the State of.Illinois.
The Company admits that at Springfield, Illinois, it is engaged in,
commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
H. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Allis-Chalmers Workers, District 50, United 'Mine Workers of
America, is a labor organization admitting to membership employees
of the, Company.
Local 120, United Farm Equipment & Metal Workers of America,
affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, is a labor'
organization admitting to membership employees of the Company.'
III. THE ALLEGED QUESTION OF REPRESENTATION •
At a consent election conducted by the Board on June 5, 1942,
among employees, of the Company's Springfield Plant, the C. 1.0.
,receiied a substantial majority of all votes cast. On June 24, 1942,
the Company and the C. I. 0. executed a written agreement entitled-
"Extension of Agreement" in which they agreed that the collective
bargaining agreement which-theretofore had been in effect between
'United Farm Equipment &' Metal Workers of America was,formerly known , succes-
sively, as Farm Equipment Organizing Committee-'C I 0 and United Farm Equipment
Workers of America-C . I. O. The present ,name was adopted in September 1942.
308 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD - -
the Company and, a prior bargaining representative 2 was •to be ex-
tended, and remain the agreement between the, Company.and the,
C. I. O. until such time as a hiew 1942-1943 agreement was negotiated
and executed by the, parties . The agreement also, stipulated that, the
flew contract when signed was) to be retroactive to, April 15, 1942.
One of the primary purposes of the extension agreement was to con-
tinue the grievance procedure that had been established under,the
former 'cont'ract during, the period of negotiations. for a new. contract
-to replace the old.
Thereafter, and during the next several weeks the C. I. O: and the
Company met on eight occasions'in bargaining conferences. During
this period, the parties reached an accord on certain local issues
which affected the Company's Springfield plant alone. ' Oh other
basic issues such as wages, union'security, vacations; and seniority,
which they Company considered should be, governed by a uniform
policylapplicable to all its plants, the parties were unable to come to
an agreement. The same basic issues had been raised in negotiations
between. the Company and labor organizations affiliated. with the
Congress of Industrial Organizations at' four other plants of' the
Company, and had been presented for determination to the National
War Labor Board. On or about July 31, 1942, after an impasse in
negotiations had been reached, the'Company and the C. I. O. adopted
a proposal made by.a United States Department of Labor'conciliator`
who had been called in to assist in'the negotiations, and' agreed rip
writing, to suspend' negotiations pending the decision of the War
Labor Board in the certified case -involving four` other plants of the
Company, and''to accept in principle the rulings of the War Labor_
Board on the contested issues.:,' Inasmuch. as the points in dispute
were already at. issue, in the pending War L A4 Board proceeding;
the parties considered it unnecessary to have the Springfield case also
certified to that Board. It appears that the C. I. O. consulted ivith
the director of, the United States Conciliation Service'on this `point
2 Prior to the consent election of June 5, 1542; the A. C S. Employees Protective Group''
had been the certified collective bargaining 'representative for employees of the Company
' The agreement was in the form of a letter , ,dated July 31, 1942, written by the Com_-
pany to the C. I. O.,'accepted by the latter, and reading as,follows .
This will confirm the agreement we reached last night with your Bargaining Com-
mittee through the efforts of Mr. J. J. Vincent, U. S Department ot'LLbor Conciliator..
This agreement is to the effect that inasmuch as the major points at issue, consisting
of the demands for a Closed Shop , Check-off. General Wage Increase , Increased
Vacation , Ten. Cent ( 10¢) Per Hour Night Differential , Plant-Wide Seniority, etc
are now being ` considered by a panel of the War Labor Board at Washington on
behalf of the C I. 0 Unions at other Allis-Chalmers Plants, it is agreed that contract
negotiations between your organisation and the Company be suspended until the
'War Labor Board . has issued its ruling upon the points involved . Negotiations are
to be, resumed immediately thereafter.
It is agreed . that the ruling . of the War /Labor Board at Washington upon the issues
Involved at the Springfield Plant, will, be accepted • in principle by both the Company-
and' the Union at Springfield ,
ALLIS-CHALMERS MANUFACTURING COMPANY 309
and was advised by the latter that in view, of the agreement to abide
by the results of the certified case, it was unnecessary and undesirable
that an additional case be certified to the War Labor Board. On
July 30, 1942, both-the C. I. O. and the Company contemplated an
early decision by the War Labor Board. However, through no fault
of the parties, delay was experienced.
On December 11, 1942, the War Labor Board issued an interim
Directive Order granting the employees in the four other company
plants certain wage increases and approving a vacation with pay plan.
On December 17,1942, after the C. 1. 0. and the Company had obtained
the approval of the War Labor Board, the awards in the certified
case were made applicable to the employees at Springfield, the wage
increases being made retroactive to April 15, 1942. However, in view
of the fact that the interim Directive Order did not dispose of a
number of other basic issues, such as those relating to union security,
lay-offs, and seniority, the C. I. O. and the Company continued to hold
the execution of a new contract in abeyance pending the issuance of
the final Directive Order. In the meantime, as had been their practice
in the past, the'C. I. O. and the Company continued to meet at least
once a month, usually more often, to discuss grievances and other mat-
ters pertaining to their collective bargaining relationship under the
extension agreemdlit of June 24, •1942.
On March 1, 1943, while the C. I. O. and the Company were still
awaiting the issuance of the War Labor Board's final Directive Order
in the certified case, District 50 filed its petition in the instant pro-
ceeding, alleging, inter alia, that a question had arisen concerning the
representation of employees at the Company's Springfield plant in
that no contract was in existence at the Company's Springfield plant,
and in that employees had signified their desire to be represented by
District 50, and the Company had refused to bargain collectively.'
'On March 3, 1943, District 50 in a letter to the Company advised that
a majority of the employees at the Company's Springfield plant had
designated District 50 as their collective bargaining representative,
warned that any contract negotiated with the C. I. O. would be "null
and void," and notified the Company that a petition for investigation
and certification' had been filed with the Board. The Company ac-
knowledged this letter on March 10, 1943, stating that the C. I. O. had
been certified as the collective bargaining representative as a result
of the consent election on June 5, 1942,,and that the Company would
continue to bargain with the C. I. O. until otherwise directed by the
Board or until a superseding certification was made by the Board.
Of the authorization cards submitted by Distiict Z O in support of its iepresentation
claim , only 16 were dated prior to MIaich 1, 1943 In all, Distuct 50 presented approxi-
mately 503 authorization cards bearing apparently genuine signatures of employees on
the Company pay roll of Maich 15, 1943, which contained 1,753 navies.
536105-44--21
f
310 ' DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
District 50 wrote the Company again on March 17, 1943, stating that
it would protest any agreement that the Company would -"negotiate
and sign"'with the C. I. O. .
Thereafter, on April 2, 1943, the War Labor Board issued its final
Directive Order, disposing of all remaining issues in the certified-case,
An providing, among other things, that the termination date of the
new contracts was to be April 15, 1944. Shortly following the issu-'
ance of the final Directive Order, the Company and the C. I. 0. met,
and, in accordance with their prior written understanding, executed
a new contract embodying therein the rulings and principles of the
interim, and final Directive Orders on all contested basic issues. The
new contract, dated May 4, 1943, was made for a term expiring April
15, 1944, the termination date which was fixed in the final Directive
Order of the War Labor Board.'
Upon the foregoing facts, the C. I. O. urges that, in the interest of
stability, the contractual relationship between the C. I. O. and the
Company, initially established by the extension agreement of June
24; 1942, supplemented by the agreement of July 31, 1942, and finally
reflected by the current agreement of May 4,1943,-embodying the terms
and conditions which the parties by their earlier agreement of, July
•31, 1942, had bound themselves to accept, and which will remain
operative until April 15, 1944, constitutes an effective bar to a present
determination of 'representatives. District 50, on the other hand,
contends that the extension agreement may not be considered a bar
because it was intended at most to cover the period from April 15,
1942, to April 15, 1943, and that the May 1943 contract may not be
considered a bar because it was not executed until after District 50
had biven notice of its representation claim and instituted the present
'proceeding.
Although the extension agreement of June 21, 1942, indicates on its
face that the parties originally contemplated that the new contract
would cover a period of approximately 1 year in 1942-1943, it was
subsequently modified by the agreement of July 31, 1942, wherein,
as a result of the Company's insistence upon uniformity among its
plants on basic provisions, the parties agreed to abide by the determi-
nation of the War Labor Board in the case then pending.before it. Im-
plicit in this agreement was the understanding that whatever contract
term was fixed by the War Labor Board in the certified case would
apply at the Springfield plant to the same extent as if the Springfield.
matter had also been certified to the War Labor Board. Under these
,circumstances, we are of the opinion that the,provision in the War
Labor Board Directive Order fixing April 15, 1944, as the termination
5In view of the petition filed by District 50, the May 4, 1943, agreement contained a
provision making it subject to any action that might be taken by the Board in this
proceeding.
ALLIS-CHALMERS MANUFACTURING COMPANY 311
date of the new contract must be given the same finality in the case of
the Springfield plant as in the cases which were directly before the
War Labor Board.
While we have frequently held that a contract executed with knowl-
edge of conflicting claims to representation is no bar to an investigation
of representatives, the facts in this case do not warrant an application
of that principle to the contract of May 4, 1943. The contract bearing
that date was executed pursuant to and in performance of the agree-
ment which had been entered into between the parties on July 31, 1942,
when there were no conflicting claims concerning representation and
the majority status of the C. I. O. was unchallenged. The contract of
May 4, 1943, formalized rather than created the obligations which, l ,
depending on the Directive Order of the War Labor Board, the parties
had agreed on July 31, 1942, to assume. It did not extend the term
of the existing contractual relationship; it merely restated it. The
term of the contract was established by the Directive of the War Labor
Board to which the parties had earlier agreed to adhere 6
We view the, extension agreement of June 24, 1942, the agreement
of July 31, 1942, the Directive Order of April 2, 1943, and the resultant
agreement of May 4, 1943, as integrated parts of a single development
evidencing an uninterrupted and stabilized contractual relationship
which began on June 24, 1942, and is to extend until April 15, 1944.
We are not unmindful of the fact that almost a year has now elapsed
since the Company and the C. I. O. entered into their contractual rela-
tionship, and that if the existing contract is held a bar it will postpone
further the period of time in which a determination of representatives
can be had. Where we are presented with the question whether to
order an election for choice of representatives in the presence of a
collective bargaining contract, we find it necessary to weigh and resolve
the conflicting interests in maintaining the stability of contractual
relationships previously established and in protecting the right of the
majority of employees to a collective bargaining representative of their
own choice., In the instant case when the Company and the C. I. O.
agreed in effect to submit their differences to arbitration through the
processes of the War Labor Board there was no conflicting claim of
representation. ' At that time, the parties did not contemplate a delay
of 8 months before issuance of a Directive Order; and even if such a
delay might reasonably have been anticipated, the parties were justified
in assuming that, in accordance with their prior understanding, the
contract reached on the basis of the Directive Order would not be,
disturbed until it had been in force for a reasonable length of time.
6 Cf. Matter of Hatfield Wire & Cable Company and International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workei s, A. F of L, 30 N L R B 360
'Cf. Matter of Mill B Inc, et al. and Inteenataonal Woodworkers of America, Local
116, C. 1. 0 , 40 N. L. R. B. 346.
- 312 DECISIONS OFt NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Under the,circumstances of this case Ave are of the opinion that it would
not effectuate the policies of,the Act to order an election at the present
time. Such an election might serve to negate the proceedings of the
War Labor Board, require new proceedings before that Board, and
create uncertainty and unsettled bargaining conditions for an addi-
tional indeterminate period. From the standpoint of stable labor rela-
tions, it, is undesirable to penalize a certified bargaining representative
for unavoidable delays consequent upon its voluntary acceptance of
orderly procedures established by governmental authority for the
adjustment of differences with an employer.. To charge a certified bar-
gaining representative with'such delays would have the effect of dis-
couraging resort to such orderly procedures and promoting industrial
strife and unrest which, the Act was designed to avoid.
Upon the entire record in this case we find that the existing con-
tractual relationship between the Company and the C. I. 0., expiring
April 15, 1944, constitutes a bar to a determination of representatives
at this time. Accordingly, we shall dismiss the petition of District 50.
This dismissal, however, shall not prejudice the right of District 50
to file a new petition at a reasonable time before the expiration of the
,existing contract: I
ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire
Tecord in the case, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders
that the petition for investigation and certification of representatives
of employees of Allis-Chalmers Manufacturing Company, Springfield,
Illinois, filed by Allis Chalmers Workers, District 50, United Mine
Workers of America, be, and,it hereby is, dismissed.