Blair Manufacturing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 28, 1950

89 N.L.R.B. 935 (N.L.R.B. 1950)

In the Matter of BLAIR MANUFACTURING COMPANY, EMPLOYER and
LOCAL 266, INTERNATIONAL UNION OF ELECTRICAL, RADIO AND
MACHINE WORKERS, CIO5 PETITIONER
Case No. 1-RC-1366-Decided April 28, 1950
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before Sidney Sher-
man, hearing officer. The hearing officer's 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 [Members Houston, Reyn-
olds, and Murdock].
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.'
3. The question concerning representation :
On August 30,1946, UE Local 266, as an affiliate of the CIO, executed
an agreement with the Employer covering the employees involved
in this case, to be in effect until August 1, 1950, and thereafter from
o year to year unless terminated by notice at least 60 days before August
1 of any year. The UE contends that this contract operates as a
bar to a present determination of representatives . Local 266, IUE-
CIO, on the other hand, contends that the contract is not a bar be-
cause as the result of a schism in Local 266, UE, a substantial number
of its former members have affiliated with Local 266, IUE-CIO. The
Employer takes the position that it does not know which union
represents its employees and it therefore is unwilling to bargain with
I These labor organizations are Local 266, International Union of Electrical , Radio and
Machine Workers, CIO, hereinafter called Local 266, IUE -CIO, and United Electrical Radio
and Machine Workers of America ( UE), hereinafter called UE.
89 NLRB No. 123.
935
936 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
either until one or the other has been certified by the Board as the-
exclusive representative of its employees.
The record shows that on November 2, 1949, the CIO at its national'
convention expelled the UE. On November 16, 1949, at a regular
membership meeting of Local 266, then affiliated with the UE, the
members passed a motion to disaffiliate from the UE and to affiliate
with the IUE-CIO. The meeting which was attended by a substantial`
number of members had been publicized 30 days in advance by nu-
merous notices on the plant bulletin boards and by postcards mailed
to individual members about a week before the meeting. Shortly
after the meeting, Local 266 applied for and received a charter from
the IUE-CIO. All the officers of the former UE Local 266 continued
to serve in their respective capacities as officers of Local 266, IUE-
CIO until January 1, 1950, when new officers were elected. Uncon-
troverted evidence indicates that since November 16, Local 266, IUE-
CIO has obtained signed membership cards from a large majority of
the Employer's employees who had been members of Local 266, UE.
It has also held regular monthly meetings since that date.
These circumstances reveal that there has been a schism in the con-
tracting union's organization which we find, for reasons stated in
the Boston Machine Works case,2 removes the current contract as a bar
to an immediate determination of representatives.'
Accordingly, we find that a 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.
4. The following employees of the Employer constitute a unit ap-
propriate for purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning
of Section 9 (b) of the Act :
All employees employed at the Employer's Springfield, .Massachu-
setts, plant, excluding watchmen, office and clerical employees, and all
supervisors as defined in the Act.
2 Boston Machine Works Company , 89 NLRB 59.
'Also for the reasons stated in the Boston 11achine Works case , cited supra, we do not
here pass upon the property rights or the collective bargaining duties of the parties with
reference to the current contract.
BLAIR MANUFACTURING COMPANY
DIRECTION OF ELECTION 4
937
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the
purposes 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 super-
vision 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 rein-
stated prior to the date of the election, and also excluding employees
on strike who are not entitled to reinstatement, to determine whether
or not they desire to be represented, for purposes of collective bar-
gaining, by Local 266, International Union of Electrical, Radio and
Machine Workers, CIO.5
' The Board's official records indicate that Local 266, UE is not in compliance with the
registration and filing requirements of Section 9 (f), (g), and (h) of the Act, but that the
UE is in full compliance. With the exception of the meeting held by UE Local 266, dis-
cussed above, the evidence does not reveal whether or not this Local has continued to
function as such since the expulsion of the UE from the CIO. The UE, however, claims
that its Local 266 is still in existence. If this Local is in existence, the UE's participa-
tion in the election herein directed is conditioned upon the full compliance within 2 weeks
from the date of this Direction, with Section 9 (f), (g), and (h) of the Act by Local 266.
General Motors case, cited supra.
[By Order dated May 11, 1950, the Board granted the Intervenor, United Electrical,
Radio and Machine Workers (UE) permission to withdraw its name from the ballot.]
5 For reasons stated in the General Motors Corporation. et al., 88 NLRB 450, we find
no merit to the contention of the UE that, insofar as the two labor organizations are
designated on the ballot, the Petitioner should not be permitted to use the same number as
the UE local.