Filtrol Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 27, 1954

109 N.L.R.B. 1071 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

FILTROL CORPORATION 1071
ents, and described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial rela-
tion to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and tend to lead to
labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
2. International Ladies Garment Workers Union, AFL, is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
3. All production employees except office, clerical, salesmen, supervisors, design-
ers, professional, and maintenance employees constitute an appropriate unit for the
purpose of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
4. Randy Sportswear, Inc., is the successor to the partnership of T. A. Tredway
and S. E. Taylor, d/b/a Diaper Jean Manufacturing Company.
5. Randy Sportswear, Inc., is responsible for remedying, to the extent hereinafter
provided, the unfair labor practices engaged in by said partners.
6. By failing and refusing on November 3, 1951, and thereafter, to bargain col-
lectively with the aforesaid Union as the exclusive representative of its employees
in the aforesaid appropriate unit of its employees, the aforesaid partnership engaged
in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (5) of the Act.
7. By discriminating in the hire, tenure, terms, and conditions of employment
of the employees named in Appendix A, attached hereto, thereby discouraging
membership in the Union, the aforesaid partnership comprising T. A. Tredway and
S. E. Taylor engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a)
(3) of the Act rendering said partners individually and jointly liable for any loss of
pay sustained as a result of the partners' discrimination.
8. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees, in the exercise of
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the aforesaid partnership engaged in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
9. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
10. The Respondents did not engage in any unfair labor practices: (a) When the
Greenville plant was temporarily shut down from November 6 to 9, 1951; (b)
when certain operations of the Greenville, Texas, plant, hereinabove described, were
moved to Commerce, Texas, on February 29, 1952; and (c) with respect to the
allegation in the complaint that the employees were promised economic betterment
if they refrained from assisting the Union.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
Appendix A
Bella, Myrtle McCormack, Pauline
Clark, Rhonda Newby, Ella
Cleek, Juanita Patterson , Beulah
Dees, Florence Voyles, Vada
Gore, Annie Winsett, Annie May
Gray, Mildred Patterson, Marjorie
FILTROL CORPORATION and OIL WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, CIO.
Case No. f1-RC-3549. August ,07,195'
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 Irving Helbling, hearing of-
ficer.i The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from
prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed 2
i The petition is hereby amended to show the correct name of the Employer as it appears
in the caption.
The hearing officer referred to the Board the Employer's motion to dismiss the
petition on the ground that a current contract with the Association of Filtrol Production
and Maintenance Employees, herein called the Association, is a bar to this proceeding.
For the reasons stated infra, this motion is hereby denied.
109 NLRB No. 158.
1072 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
Act.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. The Employer contends that its current contract with the Asso-
ciation is a bar to this proceeding. The contract was entered into on
July 1, 1953, and has no termination date. It provides that all matters
covered in the agreement, except those relating to wages, may be
opened for change or modification on July 1, 1954.3 The Petitioner
contends that the contract is not a bar because, inter alia, the Asso-
ciation is defunct and therefore incapable of administering any of
the provisions of the contract. Although served with a notice of rep-
resentation hearing, the Association made no appearance at the hear-
ing. The Association is not in compliance with Section 9 (f), (g), and
(h) of the Act, nor has it ever made any attempt to achieve such
compliance.
The Association has no constitution or bylaws, no applications for
membership, membership oath, or membership roster.4 It has never
charged dues or initiation fees. It has no officers other than its negoti-
ating committee, and has never held regular membership meetings..
The only meetings which have been held were informal lunch hour
discussions by separate members of the negotiating committee with
employees in their departments. There has been no meeting of the
negotiating committee with the Employer since October 1953. In
February 1954, the spokesman for the negotiating committee discussed
with the Employer's works manager a change in policy which the
Employer had instituted in its retirement plan. The retirement plan
is not covered in the contract between the Employer and the Associ-
ation, and had not been the subject of negotiations with the Associ-
ation. The contract with the Employer contains a three-step pro-
cedure for the handling of grievances, with a final appeal to arbitra-
tion. There have been no grievances processed beyond the first step-
The last grievance presented to the Employer was in January 1954.
Shortly before March 17, 1954, the employees took up a collection
and rented a hall for the purpose of holding an election among them-
selves to decide which of three labor organizations they wished to rep-
resent them. At this time, the employees considered that the Associ-
ation was no longer in existence, and decided to support the union
which won the election. The election was widely discussed among the
employees for approximately 3 weeks before it was held. It was held
s The contract contains provisions for reconsideration of the wage rates which are not
germane to our decision.
* All hourly rated production and maintenance employees were considered to be in the
unit.
FILTROL CORPORATION 1073
on March 17, and was by secret ballot. Observers were present to see
that no one tampered with the ballot box. The polls were opened from
8 a. in. to 8 p. in., so that the employees on each shift could vote after
they finished work. On the ballot were the petitioner, the Interna-
tional Union of Operating Engineers, AFL, and the International
Chemical Workers' Union, AFL. There were no complaints from any
employees or any member of the negotiating committee about bring-
ing an outside union into the plant, or because the Association was not
placed on the ballot. One of the members of the negotiating commit-
tee was cochairman of the election committee. He was an observer
at the election, and signed the tally of ballots after the election. The
tally of ballots showed that 220 ballots were cast, of which 185 were
for the Petitioner, 28 for the Operating Engineers, 4 for Chemical
Workers, and 1 for no union. One ballot was incorrectly marked,
and one ballot was blank.
On the day after the election, the Petitioner was notified that the em-
ployees wished it to represent them as their bargaining agent. In the
next few days the Petitioner secured signed authorization cards, and
by March 30, 1954, 264 employees had signed applications for mem-
bership in the Petitioner, and had paid their initiation fee. At the
time of the hearing 295 of the approximately 325 employees in the
bargaining unit had paid their initiation fee. All of the members of
the Association's negotiating committee are dues paying members of
the Petitioner. Some of the members of the Association's negotiating
committee have been elected officers of the Petitioner's unit at the
Employer's plant.
On April 30 the spokesman for the negotiating committee and two
members of the committee sent a letter to the Employer stating that
"because of certain proper actions of the membership on Wednesday,
March 17, 1954, [the] membership considers said Association to be dis-
solved and no longer represents them for any purpose." The record
shows that there are no employees at the plant who consider themselves
to be members of the Association, or who want the Association con-
tinued as their bargaining agent.
In view of the foregoing, we conclude that for all practical purposes
the Association is defunct, and therefore not capable of administering
its contract with the Employer.5 Accordingly, we find that the exist-
ing agreement is not a bar to a present determination of representa-
tives, and that a question affecting commerce exists concerning the rep-
resentation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Sec-
tion 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.'
6 Cf. Universal Utilities , Inc, 108 NLRB 58; Benjamin Air Rifle Company , 107,NLRB
104; Thomas L. Green & Company, Inc., 103 NLRB 1023; Ordill Foundry & Manufacturing
Co , Inc, 98 NLRB 412.
6In view of our decision herein, we find it unnecessary to consider the other contentions
of the parties with respect to the contract bar issue.
1074 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
4. The parties agree that a unit of all production and maintenance
employees at the Employer's two plants in Vernon, California,? ex-
cluding office clerical employees, guards, chemists, laboratory techni-
cians, professional employees, and supervisors, is appropriate for the
purposes of collective bargaining. They disagree, however, as to the
inclusion of three storekeepers. The Employer would exclude these
employees from the unit, whereas the Petitioner would include them.
The Employer, however, would include a storeroom helper, on the
ground that he is an hourly paid employee and does only manual work.
There are two storekeepers located at the Bandini Boulevard plant,
and a head storekeeper at the Washington Boulevard plant. The
former work under the supervision of the head storekeeper, who re-
ports directly to the Employer's works manager. The storekeepers are
paid on a salary basis, whereas production and maintenance employees
are on an hourly rate. They work in the general storeroom where they
maintain control and inventory records, and prepare purchase orders
for the purchase of needed supplies and equipment. This clerical work
takes approximately 50 percent of their time. The remainder of their
time is spent in moving supplies and equipment from the dock im-
mediately behind the storeroom to the storeroom, arranging their
stock, and issuing supplies and equipment over the counter, on proper
requisition, to maintenance foremen and employees. Production and
maintenance employees are not permitted to enter the storeroom, ex-
cept when it is necessary to help move some heavy equipment out.
Upon the basis of the foregoing facts, we find that the storekeepers
are essentially plant clerical employees such as the Board usually
includes .in production and maintenance units." Contrary to the Em-
ployer's contention, we do not consider the fact that the storekeepers
are salaried employees precludes their inclusion in a unit of hourly
rated production and maintenance employees.9 We shall, therefore,
include them in the unit.
There remains for consideration the supervisory status of the head
storekeeper. The head storekeeper interviews applicants for employ-
ment in the storeroom, and makes recommendations as to the hiring
of such employees. He also makes recommendations as to the dis-
charge of the storekeepers. Although his recommendations are subject
to further investigation, the record indicates that the Employer gives
7 These plants are located at 3250 East Washington Boulevard and 3305 East Bandini
Boulevard.
eCf Stauffer Chemical Company, 108 NLRB 1037, Chicago Pneumatic Tool Company,
108 NLRB 174 ; Mc Quay Incorporated , 107 NLRB 78T; Ohio Ferro Alloys Corporation,
107 NLRB 504; Penn-Dixie Cement Corp, 107 NLRB 251; Wisconsin Motor Corp., 100
NLRB 975 ; Bell Aircraft Corp , 98 NLRB 1277.
9 Otis Elevator Company, 107 NLRB No. 241 ( not reported in printed volumes of Board
Decisions and Orders) ; Duval Sulphur and Potash Company, 107 NLRB 1002 ; Interna-
tional Smelting and Refining Co., Raritan Copper Works, 106 NLRB 223 ; Western Electric
Co., Inc., 103 NLRB 491 ; A 0. Smith Corp , Air Frame Component Division, 102 NLRB
1116.
NEW YORK SHIPPING ASSOCIATION 1075
weight to them. He directs the storekeepers in their work, and has
authority to discipline them. We find that the head storekeeper is a
supervisor within the meaning of the Act, and shall exclude him from
the unit.
We find that all production and maintenance employees at the
Employer's two plants in Vernon, California, including storekeepers,
but excluding office clerical employees, guards, chemists, laboratory
technicians, professional employees, the head storekeeper, and all other
supervisors, constitute a unit 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.]
MEMBERS MURDOGK and RODGERS took no part in the consideration of
the above Decision and Direction of Election.
NEW YORK SHIPPING ASSOCIATION AND ITS MEMBERS and INTERNA-
TIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S ASSOCIATION, INDEPENDENT, AND AMERICAN
FEDERATION OF LABOR, INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S ASSOCIA-
TION. Case No. 2-RM-556. August 27,1954
Supplemental Decision and Certification of Representatives
On May 26, 1954, pursuant to a Supplemental Decision and Order
dated April 1, 1954, and a Second Direction of Election dated April
26, 1954, a second election by secret ballot was conducted in the above-
entitled matter under the direction and supervision of the Regional
Director for the Second Region. The tally of ballots issued on May
26, 1954, and served upon the parties showed that the challenges were
sufficient in number to affect the results of the election. No objections
were filed by any of the parties to the election.
Pursuant to Section 102.61 of the Board's Rules and Regulations,
the Acting Regional Director made an investig^A Lion of the challenged
ballots, and on June 18, 1954, issued and served on the parties his re-
port on challenges. In his report the Acting Regional Director rec-
ommended that the Board overrule the challenges to 655 ballots; sus-
tain the challenges to 472 ballots; rule 12 ballots void; and if neither
Union had a majority of the the valid votes cast after opening and
counting of the first-mentioned group of ballots, that the Board direct
a hearing to take testimony with respect to a group of 630 ballots cast
by voters challenged as alleged supervisors. Exceptions were there-
after filed by the Association and the AFL, but not by the Independ-
ent.
109 NLRB No. 162.
334811-55-vol. 109-69