Chrysler Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 14, 1950

89 N.L.R.B. 448 (N.L.R.B. 1950)

In the Matter of AIRTEMP DIVISION, CHRYSLER CORPORATION, EMPLOYER
and INTERNATIONAL UNION OF ELECTRICAL, RADIO & MACHINE WORK-
ERS, LOCAL 768, CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS (CIO),
PETITIGNERS and UNITED ELECTRICAL, RADIO AND MACHINE WORK-
ERS OF AMERICA (UE), LOCAL 768, INTERVENOR
Case No. 9-RC-695.-Decided April 14, 1950
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before Alan A.
Bruckner, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the
hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. The
Intervenor's motion to dismiss the petition. on the ground, among
others, that its contract with the Employer is a bar to this proceeding
is denied for reasons indicated below.
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, Reynolds, 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 named below claim to represent em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. The question concerning representation :
In 1940 the United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of
America (UE), hereinafter called UE, then affiliated with the C. I. 0.,
became the certified bargaining representative of the employees of
the Employer. Since 1941 UE and its Amalgamated Local 768 have
bargained with the Employer for the employees here involved on
the basis of a series of contracts, the last of which is terminable on
September 15, 1950. The UE contends that this contract is a bar to a
present determination of representatives. The International Union
89 NLRB No. 61.
448
4
AIRTEMP DIVISION , CHRYSLER CORPORATION 449
of Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers, Local 768, C. I. 0., here-
inafter called IUE-CIO, contends , on the other hand, that the special
circumstances of this case warrant setting the contract bar rule aside.
and directing an immediate election . The Employer takes no position
with regard to the contract bar issue.
The record reveals that before November 10, 1949, the over-all
membership in UE Amalgamated Local 768 comprised an- estimated
3,400 to 4,200 employees in approximately 20 plants of various em-
ployers located in, and around the city of Dayton, Ohio. This pro-
ceeding is concerned with the representation of 1 unit consisting of
about 625 employees employed at the Employer 's plant.
On November 3, 1949, the Executive Board of UE Local 768 met
and voted to recommend to the membership acceptance of a resolution
whereby the local would disaffiliate from the UE and apply for a
charter from the IUE-CIO. This action was taken following the
expulsion of the UE from the CIO on November 2, 1949.1 Thereafter,
on November 10, 1949, UE Local 768 met in a specially called general
membership meeting and voted to accept the resolution sponsored by
the Executive Board. For the convenience of all shifts of employees
the meeting was held in 2 sessions , 1 in the afternoon and another in
the evening . Estimates of those attending the meeting ranged from
150 to 200 at the afternoon session and from 300 to 1,200 at the evening
session. A register of those attending the evening session listed 1,131
names. Although no record of the actual vote was taken , the evidence
indicates that a large percentage of the members present were in favor
of the resolution . The meeting was publicized several days in advance
by notices on the plant bulletin boards, leaflets distributed before the
gates, and by word of mouth. After the meeting Local 768 applied for
and received a charter from the IUE-CIO . All of the former officers
of the UE Local 768 have transferred their allegiance to and have
continued in the same capacity as officers of IUE-CIO Local 768.
On November 16, 1949, a group of employees met in the offices of the
UE and elected temporary officers for UE Local 768 to replace those
who had become officers of IUE-CIO Local 768. Since that date UE
Local 768 has held additional meetings . Because of the events de-
scribed above the Employer, while continuing to deduct checkoff dues,
has refused to pay any money to either organization pending a legal
determination of the issues . The Employer takes the position that it
I See, General Motors Corporation , 88 NLRB 450 . At the 11th Constitutional Con-
vention of the CIO in Cleveland , Ohio , the UE was expelled from the CIO and the IUE-CIO
was established to represent employees previously represented by the former organization.
450 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
will recognize whichever labor organization is certified by the Board as
the representative of its employees.
The foregoing facts demonstrate that the normal bargaining rela-
tionship between the Employer and the original contracting union has
become a matter of extreme confusion and uncertainty. Under these
circumstances, as we have recently held,2 to find that the contract
constitutes a bar to an immediate election would seriously impede
rather than encourage the practice of collective bargaining at the Em-
ployer's plant. Without passing on the property rights 3 or the collec-
tive bargaining duties of the parties with reference to the current con-
tract, we find that it is not a bar to a present determination of
representatives.
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 `production and maintenance employees employed at the Em-
ployer's Dayton, Ohio, plant, including tool and die makers, but
excluding guards, professional employees, office and clerical employees,
foremen, assistant foremen, working and nonworking group leaders,
inspectors, employees in the engineering department, and all super-
visors.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION 4
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
2 Boston Machine Works Company , 89 NLRB 59.
a A determination of the property rights of the parties is now pending in the State courts
of Ohio.
By Order dated May 5, 1950, the Board granted the Intervenor , United Electrical,
Radio and Machine Workers of America ( UB), Local 768 , permission to withdraw its name
from the ballot.
AIRTEMP DIVISION, CHRYSLER CORPORATION. 451
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 bargain-
ing, by International Union of Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers,
Local 768, Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO).
889227-51-vol . 80--30