Filtration Engineers, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 17, 1952

98 N.L.R.B. 1210 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

1210 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
FILTRATION ENGINEERS, INCORPORATED and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIA-
TION OF BRIDGE, STRUCTURAL AND ORNAMENTAL IRON WORSERS SHOP-
MEN'S LOCAL No. 545, AFL, PETITIONER . Case No. 2-RC-4255.
April 17,1952
Decision and Direction of Election
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Lloyd S. Greenidge,
hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing
are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
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 Employer and the Intervenor contend that a contract be-
tween them effective November 1, 1951, is a bar to this petition. The
Intervenor, an international union, and its Local 2816, have been the
contractual representative of the employees concerned herein for
approximately 10 years. The agreements, until 1948, were executed
by the Intervenor "on behalf" of Local 2816. After that date, how-
ever, the contracts have stated that the Employer recognizes the Inter-
venor "and its Local 2816" as the sole collective bargaining representa-
tive of its employees, and the agreements have been signed by both
the Intervenor and the officers of the local. Negotiations for these
contracts have been conducted by the Employer, a representative of
the Intervenor, and a shop committee of the local union. During
October 1951, negotiations were commenced for a new contract to re-
place the agreement expiring October 31 of that year. Before the
close of negotiations, a proposed contract was read to a meeting of
the local membership. The local, at that time, registered opposition
to one clause of the proposed contract and directed the international
representative to bring the contract back for ratification after the dis-
puted section had been negotiated further 2 On November 14, 1951,
the Employer and the international representative signed a new
contract effective as of November 1, 1951. The contract was then
sent to the international offices of the Intervenor for additional
signatures, and was not returned until sometime after November
20, 1951, when the instant petition was filed. The November 14
1 The United Steelworkers of America , CIO, herein termed the Intervenor , was granted
intervention at the hearing on the showing of a contractual interest in the representation
of these employees. Local 2816 of the United Steelworkers , although a party to the
contract , and served with notice of hearing , did not appear or request intervention.
2 The previous contracts , the record shows, have consistently been ratified by a meeting
of the local membership before they were finally executed.
98 NLRB No. 182.
FILTRATION ENGINEERS, INCORPORATED 1211
agreement states that it is "between the Filtration Engineers Incor-
porated, and the United Steel Workers of America and its Local
#2816." The agreement has never been finally ratified by the local
membership and has never been signed by the officers of the local.
As the November 14 contract, urged as a bar, was not signed by
one of the named parties to the contract, the Board finds that it cannot
bar consideration of the instant petition. The Board is here concerned
with the express terms of a' bargaining contract, and not with the
requirements of the constitution of the intervening labor organiza-
tion which are emphasized by the dissenting Member. The parties
involved have clearly indicated in their agreements since 1948 that
the bargaining contracts at this plant were to be the joint responsibi-
lity and action of both the Intervenor and its local. For the Board
to interpret the agreements otherwise would be to find the change in
language in the contract meaningless and to ignore the plain intent
of the parties expressed therein. While there is no question that
the Intervenor, through it intraunion relationships with the local,
could have maintained its constitutional status as sole bargaining
agent, it apparently chose in this case to deviate from the constitution
and to abandon that status. It has acquiesced in contracts ignoring
that supremacy since 1948. Under these circumstances, it cannot now
claim a condition contrary to that expressed in the written agreement
asserted as a bar.3 Accordingly, we find that a question affecting
commerce exists concerning the representation of certain employees
of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) and Section 2
(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Petitioner requests that we find appropriate a unit of all em-
ployees of the Employer excluding executives, sales and designing
engineers, office and clerical employees, guards, watchmen, seam-
stresses, and all supervisors. The parties are agreed as to the appro-
priateness of this unit except as to seamstresses and an employee
classified as a sweeper-porter.
The Employer is engaged in the production of rotary vacuum filters
and filter cloth. The four seamstresses, whom the Employer and the
Petitioner would exclude, and the Intervenor include in the unit, work
on the second floor of the plant where they out and fabricate filter cloth
some of which is used in the filters produced elsewhere in the plant.
The seamstresses use industrial sewing machines in their work, are
hourly paid at the same over-all wage level as other employees, and
share the same general working conditions as other employees in the
8 Cf. C. Hager & Sons Hinge Manufacturing Company, 80 NLRB 163, and cases cited
therein where the Board held that constitutional provisions or the absence thereof might
be indicative where the local was not named as a party to the agreement , or where the
contract was signed by all parties but other signatures were added later . The Board in
no instance has adverted to checkoff payment provisions as being decisive in such questions.
1212 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
plant. Accordingly, as the seamstresses are production employees
engaged in work related to that performed elsewhere in the plant, have
a mutuality of interests and working conditions with employees in the
unit, and as the record shows no compelling reason for their exclu-
sion, we shall include the seamstresses in the unit hereinafter found
appropriate.
The Employer also -requests that we exclude the sweeper-porter who
cleans the office section of the plant. The Intervenor would include
this employee while the Petitioner takes no position on the issue. The
sweeper-porter works regularly each day for 3 hours and performs the
usual duties of that job classification. As this employee is a regular
part-time employee performing maintenance duties similar to those
of other employees in the unit, we shall, in accord with our usual cus-
tom, include the sweeper-porter in the unit.4
Upon the entire record the Board finds that a unit of all employees
at the Employer's rotary vacuum filter and filter cloth plant at
Newark, New Jersey, including seamstresses and the sweeper-porter,
but excluding executives, sales and designing engineers, office and
clerical employees, guards, watchmen, the manager, assistant manager,
superintendent, assistant superintendent, foremen, and all supervisors
as defined in the amended Act is appropriate for the purposes of collec-
tive bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
MEMBER STYLES, dissenting :
I would find that the current contract between the Employer and
the Intervenor bars a present determination of representatives. I
cannot agree that the fact that officers of Local 2816 did not sign the
agreement of November 14, 1951, renders that contract ineffective as
a bar.
The contract in question was fully executed by the Employer and
the Intervenor, United Steel Workers of America, CIO. That inter-
national union operates under a constitution, binding on all of its
locals, which provides, in article XVII, section 1, that: "The Inter-
national Union shall be the contracting party in all collective bargain-
ing agreements and all such agreements shall be signed by the Inter-
national officers." There is no provision making the locals a neces-
sary party to collective bargaining agreements .5 Consistent with that
constitution all contracts executed between the Employer and the
Intervenor from about 1941 to 1948, stated that the agreement was be-
See Slater h Son, 96 NLRB 1026.
b Further indicative of the primary position of the international as the union party to
the contract Is a provision in the constitution ( article XVII, section 2), which states that
If an agreement contains a checkoff provision the agreement shall specifically provide that
the Employer shall pay the funds to the international.
ALASKA SALMON INDUSTRY, INC. 1213
tween the Employer and the Intervenor "on behalf" of Local 2816.
It is significant that during this period, although the language used
clearly indicated that the international was acting as the agent of
Local 2816, it apparently was the practice for both international and
Local 2816 officers to sign the contracts.
The contracts subsequent to 1948, including the one urged in bar
in this case, changed the introductory language so as to make the agree-
ment one between the Employer and "The United Steel Workers of
America and its Local #2816." However, I cannot attach the signifi-
cance to this modification that my colleagues apparently do. The
change is unexplained and there is nothing in the record to suggest
that after 1948 it was intended that the international should no longer
be the primary contracting party for the Union, as its constitution
continues to require, acting essentially as the agent of the local.
Nothing in the contract specifies that it is not effective until signed
both by international and local officers. Nor is the fact that provision
is made for signature by local officers of any real significance; for,
as I have pointed out above, similar provision was made during the
period of time when the contract specifically indicated that the inter-
national was acting on behalf of the local.
The parties to the November 14, 1951, agreement considered that
they had executed a binding, effective agreement. In view of the
constitutional authority of the Intervenor, and in the absence of any
provision in the agreement suspending its effectiveness until approved
by the local, I would not go behind the intention of the parties and
upset the stability that contract was designed to achieve. Such a
view is, in my opinion, far more consistent with the position the Board
has in the past taken in comparable cases 6 than that adopted by my
colleagues here.
MEMBER PETERSON took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Direction of Election.
6 See Montgomery Ward & Co. Inc., 68 NLRB 369; l; lectro Metallurgical Company, 72
NLRB 1396; C. Hager & Sons Hinge Manufacturing Company, 80 NLRB 163, footnote 3.
ALASKA SALMON INDUSTRY , INC. and BERING SEA FISHERMEN'S UNION,
PETITIONER . Case No. 19-RC-746. April 17, 1952
Supplemental Decision , Order, and Amended Direction of
Election
On June 15,1951, the Board issued a Decision and Direction of Elec-
tion in this proceeding,'. finding appropriate a unit of resident and
nonresident fishermen, set netters, beachmen, net tenders, boat crews
1 94 NLRB 1211.
98 NLRB No. 179.