Balboa Pacific Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 28, 1950

88 N.L.R.B. 1505 (N.L.R.B. 1950)

In the Matter of BALBOA PACIFIC CORPORATION , EMPLOYER and UNITED
FURNITURE WORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL 576, CIO, PETITIONER
Case No. 21-RC-1069.-Decided March 08,'1950
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before Ben Grodsky,
hearing officer. The hearing officer, over the Petitioner's objections,
permitted intervention in this proceeding bythe Metal Trades Council
of Southern California, AFL, herein called the Intervenor, acting for
and on behalf of the following local unions : Metal Polishers, Buffers,
Platers and Helpers International Union, Local 67, AFL; Upholsterers
International Union of North America, Local 15, AFL; and Furni-
ture Workers Union, Local 3161, United Brotherhood of Carpgenters
and Joiners of America, AFL. The Petitioner objected to such
intervention on the grounds that (1) the unions for which the Inter-
venor is acting, and not the Intervenor, are the real parties in interest;
(2) two of these unions are not affiliated with or constituent mem-
bers of the Intervenor; (3) the designation cards offered for the
showing of interest specified the Upholsterers International Union
of North America, Local 15, AFL and the Furniture Workers Union,
Local 3161, and not the Intervenor; and (4) some of the cards sub-
mitted by the Intervenor in support of its showing of interest were
outdated.
The three unions have authorized the Intervenor to represent them
for the purposes of this proceeding. The issue of whether they had
such authority under their constitutions, or whether they are affili-
ated with or are constituent members of the Intervenor, is imma-
terial to the question of representation.' The Intervenor is willing
to represent the employees of the Employer, and there is no showing
that it will not adequately do so. In these circumstances, we find
that the Intervenor is a real party in interest.2 Concerning the cur-
i The United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America is included in the metal
trades department of the AFL. The Intervenor has previously negotiated contracts for
other AFL unions which are not directly affiliated with the Intervenor.
2 Cf. Iowa Packing Company, 85 NLRB 1080; Biggs Antique Company, 85 NLRB 554;
Modern Upholstered Chair Company, Inc., 85 NLRB 95 ; Illinois Institute of Technology,
81 NLRB 201; Samuel Bonat & Bro., Inc., 81 NLRB 1249; Harry Brown Motor Company,
86 NLRB 652.
88 NLRB No. 259.
1505
1506 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
rency of the Intervenor's showing of interest, it is the Board's thor-
oughly settled policy that this is an administrative matter not open
to question or attack by the parties 3
The hearing officer's ruling permitting intervention, and his other
rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are
hereby affirmed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members
Houston and Styles].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the National Labor Relations Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.4
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section
9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. We find that all production and maintenance employees at the
Employer's Fullerton, California, plants, excluding sales, office, and
clerical employees, guards, and supervisors, constitute a unit appro-
priate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning
of Section 9 (b) of the Act.'
5. The Employer takes the position that the status of the Petitioner
is in such doubt at the present time as to disqualify it from acting as
a representative of the employees involved herein. It alleges that the
Petitioner is presently under investigation by the CIO and, depending
upon the outcome of such investigation, is subject to expulsion from
the CIO.s It contends that if the Petitioner wins the election, and
after certification loses its affiliation with the CIO, a question would
arise as to the identity of the labor organization holding the certifica-
tion, thus creating a new question concerning representation.
We do not believe that the interests of the Employer will be preju-
diced by directing an election at this time. We cannot assume, because
eharges have been filed, that the Petitioner will be expelled from the
s Farrell-Cheek Steel Company, 88 NLRB 303; Clarostat Manufacturing Co., Inc., 88
NLRB 723 ; Wm. P. McDonald Corporation, 83 NLRB 427.
' At the hearing , the Employer refused to stipulate that the Petitioner is a labor organiza-
tion within the meaning of the Act . We find that the Petitioner is a labor organization
within the meaning of the Act, inasmuch as it exists for the purpose of engaging in collective
bargaining with employers with respect to wages, hours , and other conditions of employment.
5 This unit finding is made only with reference to the Employer ' s plants at 311 South
Highland Avenue at 225 West Santa Fe Avenue.
The Employer contends that the hearing officer committed prejudicial error by excluding
evidence with respect to the possible expulsion of the Petitioner from the CIO . For the
reasons stated herein, we find this contention to he without merit.
BALBOA PACIFIC CORPORATION 1507
CIO, or that the employees will not want the Petitioner to represent
them in the event that it is no longer affiliated with the CIO.7 We
find no merit in the Employer's contention.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining with the Employer, an election by secret
ballot shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later than 30 days
from the date of this Direction, under the direction and supervision
of the Regional Director for the Region in which this case was heard,
and subject to Sections 203.61 and 203.62 of National Labor Relations
Board Rules and Regulations, among the employees in the unit found
appropriate in paragraph numbered 4, above, who were employed
during the payroll period immediately preceding the date of this
Direction of Election, including employees who did not work during
said payroll period because they were ill or on vacation or temporarily
laid off, but excluding those employees who have since quit or been
discharged for cause and have not been rehired or reinstated prior to
the date of the election, and also excluding employees on strike who
are not entitled to reinstatement, to determine whether they desire to
be represented, for purposes of collective bargaining, by United Furni-
ture Workers of America, Local 576, CIO, or by Metal Trades Council
of Southern California, AFL, acting for and on behalf of Metal
Polishers, Buffers, Platers and Helpers International Union, Local 67,
AFL; Upholsterers International Union of North America, Local. 15,
AFL; and Furniture Workers Union, Local 3161, United Brotherhood
of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL, or by neither.
4 See N. L. R. B. v . Harris -Woodson Co ., 179 F. 2d 720 ( C. A. 4), where the court enforced
a-Board order holding , " It was the local union which the employees chose as their bargain-
ing representative ; and the fact that they.desired it to represent them in collective bargain-
ing was not affected- by its change either of name or affiliation . . . The identity of
that representative , composed entirely of the company 's employees , was not changed
either by its change of name or its change of affiliation."
8 Either participant in the election directed herein may , upon its prompt request to, and
approval thereof by , the Regional Director , have its name removed from the ballot.
882191-51-96