General Electric Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 15, 1952

98 N.L.R.B. 134 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

134 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE WILL bargain collectively , upon request, with OFFICE EMPLOYES INTER
NATIONAL UNION, LOCAL 153, AFL, as the exclusive representative of all our
employees in the bargaining unit described below with respect to grievances,
labor disputes , rates of pay , hours of employment , and other conditions of
employment , and if an understanding is reached , embody such understand-
ing in a signed agreement . The bargaining unit is:
All office , clerical , and shipping employees employed at our Lexington
Avenue plant , excluding all supervisors as defined in the National Labor
Relations Act.
LEAiER NEWS CO, INC,
Employer.
Dated -------------------- B3'----------------------------
(Repiesentatiti •e) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must
not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, OPERATING DivisioN, LAMP DEPARTMENT
and LOCAL 101, INTERNATIONAL UNION OF ELECTRICAL, RADIO AND
MACHINE WORKERS, CIO, PETITIONER. Case No. 8-RC-J378.
February 15, 1952
Decision and Order
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Charles A. Fleming, 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 Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. United Electrical, Radio, and Machine Workers of America,
(UE), Local 707, herein called the Intervenor, contends that its ex-
isting contract with the Employer constitutes a bar to this proceeding.
The Petitioner contends that a schism has occurred within the ranks
of the Intervenor affecting the bargaining unit in question, which
removes the contract as a bar to a present determination of represent-
atives. The Employer takes a neutral position.
In May 1950, pursuant to its Decision and Direction of Elections,'
the Board conducted elections, with both the Petitioner and the In-
tervenor appearing on the ballot, inter alia, among the employees
of the Employer in 23 separate bargaining units found appropriate
1 General Electric Company, 89 NLRB 726
98 NLRB No. 25.
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY 135
by the Board with respect to the Employer's operations in Cleveland,
Ohio. As a result of these elections the Board certified the Petitioner
as the bargaining representative of the employees in 18 of the
Cleveland units, and the Intervenor as representative of the employees
in 5 of the Cleveland units, including the unit involved in the instant
proceeding. On September 15,1950, the Intervenor and the Employer
entered into a collective bargaining contract, to terminate on Sep-
tember 15, 1952, embracing all of the bargaining units of employees
of the Employer throughout the United States as to which the In-
i ervenor was certified as representative by the Board. The unit in
question, which includes only the boiler room employees of the Em-
ployer at 1133 East 152nd Street, Cleveland, Ohio, was specifically
covered by the contract.
On November 9, 1951, Edward King, one of the boiler room em-
ployees purporting to act as "chief steward," 2 dispatched to each of
the other 9 employees in the unit a letter by registered mail, and on
November 14, 1951, a postal card "reminder," s which scheduled a
meeting to be held at the office of the Petitioner for the express pur-
poses of (a) disaffiliating from the Intervenor and (b) affiliating
with the Petitioner. On November 18, 1951, a meeting was held, as
scheduled, at the office of the Petitioner. - It was attended by 6 of
the 10 employees in the unit. With King presiding, and employee
Anton Kocina acting as secretary, motions were unanimously carried
(a) to disaffiliate from the Intervenor and (b) to affiliate with
the Petitioner.' King and Kocina testified that they notified the
Employer 1 or 2 weeks before the hearing to stop their check-off
of dues to the Intervenor; and Kocina testified that he knew that
"some" of the other employees in the unit notified the Employer to
the same effect.
King testified that David Fitzmaurice, president of Local 707, the
Petitioner herein, composed the letter of November 9, 1951, to the em-
ployees, with King's help, and that Fitzmaurice assisted him with
respect to his activities in effecting the employees' transfer of affiliation
to the Petitioner. However, King testified that he did not know who
purchased and furnished the paper on which the notices of the dis-
affiliation meeting were typed, and who furnished the typewriter and
typed the notices. With the exception of the disaffiliation meeting on
November 18, 1951, there is no evidence that any formal meeting con-
fined to the employees in the boiler room unit was ever held. Notice'
2 There is no evidence that King was elected by the employees or appointed by the
Intervenor to act as steward However, it appears that King ' s assumption of certain of
the duties of steward was accepted on the part of both the employees and the Intervenor.
3 Typewritten carbon copies of the form of the letter and postal card, but not the
originals , were offered and admitted in evidence
" A typewritten cai hon copy of the minutes was introduced in evidence . Kocina testified
that the original of the minutes was destroyed.
136 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of the disaffiliation meeting was not posted on the bulletin board pro-
vided in the boiler room.
No contention is made that the Intervenor was inoperative or de-
funct, or that its contract was not administered on behalf of the boiler
room employees. Meetings of the Intervenor, whose organization con-
sisted mainly of a number of units of the Employer's employees in
the Cleveland area, were held regularly. On one occasion during the
term of the contract, the boiler room employees received direct repre-
sentation by the Intervenor in joint wage negotiations with the Em-
ployer. Within the constitutional framework of the international
organization of the Intervenor, the employees in question were
directly represented on the conference board 5 which, among other
things, appoints the appropriate committees to carry on collective
bargaining negotiations with the Employer.
The Petitioner contends that because the Intervenor, in August 1951,
consented to a Board election as to another unit covered by the current
contract, the Intervenor has thereby waived its right to assert the con-
tract as a bar to an election among the present employees in the boiler
room unit. We find the contention without merit.
Under all the circumstances in this case, including the facts that
the disaffiliation meeting took place, as it was arranged, in the office
of the Petitioner, and that the Petitioner advised and actively assisted
the employees in their disaffiliation efforts, we do not believe that
the employees in the boiler room unit, in fact and effect, voted at a
proper meeting of the contracting union to disaffiliate from that union.
We are particularly cognizant of the fact that in May 1950, following
the separation of the Intervenor from the Congress of Industrial Or-
ganizations, the employees in question had an opportunity in Board-
conducted elections to choose between the contending unions herein, or
neither of them, and they then voted for the Intervenor to represent
them. The Intervenor appears still to be ready, willing, and able to,
continue its representation of these employees for purposes of collective
bargaining. Accordingly we find that the facts in the present case do.
not warrant the application of the Board's schism doctrines and that
the existing contract between the Intervenor and the Employer con-
stitutes a bar to this proceeding. We shall therefore dismiss the
petition.
Order
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition herein be, and it hereby isr
dismissed.
B Representation on the conference board was determined on the basis of a ratio of 1
representative for each 25 members, except that bargaining units of less than 25 employees;
were each entitled to a single representative.
6 See Boyle -Midway, Inc, 97 NLRB 895; Rex Curtain Corp ., et at.,. 9,7 NLRB 899;:
Saginaw Furniture Shops, Inc, 97 NLRB 1488