Climax Molybdenum Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 26, 1964

146 N.L.R.B. 508 (N.L.R.B. 1964)

508 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
If employees have any questions about this notice or whether Local 612 is com-
plying with its provisions , the employees may communicate with the Board's Re-
gional Office at 1203 City Federal Building, 2026 Second Avenue , N., Birmingham,
Alabama, Telephone No. 323-8011.
Climax Molybdenum Company and Office Employees Inter-
national Union , Local No. 5, and Local No. 410, AFL-CIO,
Petitioners. Case No. 30-RC-1037. March 26, 196.
DECISION AND ORDER AMENDING CERTIFICATION
OF REPRESENTATIVES
On June 15, 1955, pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon
consent election, a representation election was held among the Em-
ployer's plant clerical and office clerical employees at its Climax,
Colorado, plant. As a result of this election, the Board on June 23,
1955, certified Office Employees International Union, Local No. 5,
AFL-CIO, as the exclusive bargaining representative of the aforemen-
tioned employees.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Leedom and Brown].
On December 1, 1963, Local 5 and Local 410, Office Employees In-
ternational Union, AFL-CIO, Joint Petitioners herein, filed the in-
stant request to amend the certification to designate Local 410 in place
of Local 5 as the certified representative of the above employees. In
this request, Local 5 and Local 410 allege, in substance, that : (1) the
Employer currently recognizes Local 5 as representative of its em-
ployees and there is a collective-bargaining agreement now in effect
between the Employer and Local 5, effective from January 1, 1963, to
November 1, 1965; (2) the impassable terrain in winter makes it dif-
ficult to reach the Employer's plant from the Denver, Colorado, head-
quarters of Local 5 and because of this factor and the, relative fre-
quency of grievances, a gradual autonomy has been achieved by the
employees in the Climax unit and they have elected their own officers
and executive board members and have adopted a constitution; (3) in
August 1963, a separate local at the Climax plant was chartered as
Local 410 by the International; and (4) Local 410 has the same officers
as the Climax unit of Local 5.
In its objections, filed on December 20, 1963, to the above request
to amend the certification,, the Employer contends that Local 410 is a
new and separate legal entity from Local 5, and that the request to
amend presents a question concerning representation which can be
resolved only by the filing of a representation petition. We find no
merit in the Employer's objections to the Petitioners' request which is
146 NLRB No. 61.
MILK DRIVERS & DAIRY EMPLOYEES LOCAL 584, ETC. 509
before us. The allegations contained in the request, not denied by the
Employer, establish in our view that Local 410 is a continuation of
the certified representative herein. Thus, both Locals 5 and 410 are
locals of the same International; Local 410 was chartered in order to
make it possible for the employees at the Climax plant to be repre-
sented more effectively ; the chartering of Local 410 and the transfer
of representative status from Local 5 to Local 410 was approved by the
International and by both Locals 5 and 410; 1 and Local 410's officers
are the same as those of the autonomous Local 5 unit at the Climax
plant. In these circumstances, we find that the requested substitution
of Local 410 for Local 5 as certified representative of the employees
in the unit would insure to these employees a continuity of their present
organization and representation and we shall therefore grant the peti-
tioner's request.' Such amendment of the certification is not, how-
ever, to be considered as a new certification or a recertification.
[The Board amended the Certification of Representatives issued to
Office Employees International Union, Local No. 5, AFL-CIO, in
Case No. 30-RC-1037 by substituting therein "Office Employees In-
ternational Union, Local No. 410, AFL-CIO" for "Office Employees
International Union, Local No. 5, AFL-CIO."]
I The Employer does not contend , and there is no indication in the documents filed with
the Board , that the employees involved do not wish to be represented by Local 410.
2 Bushnell Steel Company , 96 NLRB 218 . See also United States Plywood Corporation,
98 NLRB 1330 . Although Chairman McCulloch concurred in Gulf Oil Company, 135 NLRB
184, he believes that the instant case is distinguishable . In Gulf, the Board denied the
motion to substitute Local 826 , International Union of Operating Engineers , for Local 715
of the same International as certified representative of the employees involved . In that
case , however, the employees in the involved unit apparently had theretofore been repre-
sented by their own local and the motion sought to transfer the certification to an
amalgamated local. Under those circumstances , the Board found that the substitution of
Local 826 as representative of the employees would have resulted in a complete loss of
identity of the certified Local 715 , without insuring to the employees in the unit a con-
tinuity of their existing representation . Here, on the other hand , the certified local is an
amalgamated local and the petitioners seek to transfer the certification to a local which
would represent only the Climax employees . In this context, it is clear that the requested
substitution would afford the employees involved representation by a successor local which
both is identified with their specific unit grouping and has a continuing identification with
their prior representative.
Milk Drivers and Dairy Employees Local Union No. 584, Inter-
national Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse-
men and Helpers of America and Old Dutch Farms, Inc.,
Charging Party. Case No. 2-CC-800. March Vii, 1964
DECISION AND ORDER
On October 9, 1963, Trial Examiner Owsley Vose issued his Decision
in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had
engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and
146 NLRB No. 62.