General Electric Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 10, 1954

108 N.L.R.B. 1294 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

1294 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tion to the IUE-CIO; (d) that after the disaffiliation action, a
new local was chartered by the IUE-CIO; and (e ) that the Em-
ployer was duly notified of the new local ' s claim to represent
the employees as the result of the transfer of affiliation. It
is clear that the organization of UE-Local 301 has been
virtually depleted and that it is presently incapable of admin-
istering the contract . Certainly , there is sufficient indication
here that the bargaining relationship between the Employer
and the representative of the employees has become so confused
that it can no longer be said to promote stability in industrial
relations . Under established precedent , the Board ' s contract-
bar rules do not apply in such circumstances , and an immediate
election is the remedy which would best resolve the conflicting
claims of the two unions here involved . u On the basis of a
schism , therefore , I would hold the contract no bar.
Member Peterson , concurring:
I agree with my colleagues in directing an election despite
the existence of a contract between the Employer and the UE
which does not expire until April 1, 1955. I do so, however,
only because I regard the facts here to be governed by the
special schism rule announced by the Board in the A. C.
Lawrence case 108 NLRB 546). Although I concurred on
different grounds in that case, I now deem myself bound by
that rule.
"See Boston Machine Works Company, 89 NLRB 59; C & D Batteries , Inc., 107 NLRB 1405.
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY (NEWARK LAMP WORKS,
SEABOARD LAMP WORKS, NEWARK SERVICE DISTRICT)
and INTERNATIONAL UNION OF ELECTRICAL, RADIO
AND MACHINE WORKERS , CIO, Petitioner . Case No. 2-RC-
6468 . June 10, 1954
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Jacob Lazarus,
hearing officer .' The hearing officer's rulings made at the
hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby
affirmed.I
i The petition and other formal papers are amended to show the correct name of the Em-
ployer as it appears in the caption.
ZUmted Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America (UE), and Local 429, United
Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America ( UE), herein called the UE , objected to
a number of rulings made by the hearing officer which restricted the UE in its attempt to
introduce evidence relating to the schism issue. As none of the proffered evidence is germane
to our decision , we find it unnecessary to pass upon the correctness of the hearing officer's
rulings.
108 NLRB No. 184.
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY 1295
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 employees of the Employer.'
3. The UE contends that a current contract with the Employer
is a bar to the instant proceeding. The Petitioner contends that
in view of the "reopening" clause in the contract and repre-
sentations made by the UE and its locals , the UE is stopped
from contending that the contract is a bar at this time. The
Petitioner further contends that the contract is not a bar
because there has been a schism in the ranks of UE Local 429.
At the hearing, the Employer took no position on this issue.
In its brief to the Board, however, the Employer states that it
waives whatever right it might have to urge application of the
contract -bar doctrine in the instant case, and requests the
Board to help clear the air by ordering an election.
The UE has a national agreement with the Employer which
covers the operations involved in this proceeding as well as
other operations of the Employer. This contract provides for
automatic renewal, and has an anniversary date of April 1,
1955. It contains the following modification clause:
Not more than 60 days and not less than 30 days prior
to: June 1, 1954, . . . either the Company or the Union may
present to the other notice of proposed modifications or
additions to the provisions hereof. Within 15 days after such
notice is given, collective bargaining negotiations shall
commence for the purpose of considering such modifica-
tions or additions. Failing agreement thereon by June 1,
1954, . . . the Union and its UE Locals shall have the
right to strike, but the contract shall continue in effect as
provided in Article XXVI. However, in the event of such
strike, the Company may, at its option, terminate this
Agreement upon three days' written notice to the Union.
In view of the nature of this modification clause, and for the
reasons fully set out in our decision in General Electric Com-
pany," issuing today, we find that the contract between the
Employer and the UE is not a bar to this proceeding."
Accordingly, we find that a question affecting commerce
exists concerning the representation of employees of the
3 The hearing officer referred to the Board the UE ' s motion to dismiss the petition on the
ground that its contract constituted a bar to this proceeding . For the reasons stated in para-
graph numbered 3, this motion is hereby denied. We also deny the Petitioner 's motion to
incorporate certain evidence into the record , as it is not necessary to our decision in this case.
4 The UE was permitted to intervene on the basis of a current contract with the Employer.
5108 NLRB 1290.
"In view of our decision herein, we find it unnecessary to consider the other contentions of
the parties with respect to the contract - bar issue.
1296 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2
(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. We find that the following employees constitute separate
units appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act: 7
a. All of the Employer's lamp department production and
maintenance employees at its Newark Lamp Works plant,
40 Seventeenth Avenue, Newark, New Jersey, excluding office
clerical employees , professional employees , guards, and
supervisors.
b. All lamp department production and maintenance em-
ployees at the Employer' s Seaboard Lamp Works, 40 Seventeenth
Avenue, Newark, New Jersey, excluding office clerical em-
ployees, professional employees , guards, and supervisors.
c. All warehouse employees of Newark Service District of
the Employer ' s lamp department at its Newark plant, 133 Boyd
Street, Newark , New Jersey, excluding office clerical em-
ployees, truckdrivers , platform men , mechanics , guards, and
supervisors.
d. All truckdrivers, platform men , and mechanics of the
Newark Service District of the Employer' s lamp department
at its Newark plant, 133 Boyd Street, Newark , New Jersey,
excluding guards and supervisors.
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.]
Member Murdock concurring:
I would , like my majority colleagues , hold the contract no bar
to an immediate election in this case . For my part, however, I
would base this conclusion on the fact that an effective schism
has taken place in the organization of the contracting union.
My criticism of the ground relied upon by the majority is set
forth in my separate concurring opinion in a companion case
issued this day.'
In the A. C. Lawrence and International Harvester cases,' the
Board recently announced the schism doctrine:
. that expulsion of a labor union by its parent organiza-
tion coupled with disaffiliation action at the local level for
reasons related to the expulsion disrupts any established
bargaining relationship between an employer and the local
union and creates such confusion that the existing contract
with such union no longer stabilizes industrial relations
between the employer and its employees . . . . Such con-
fusion and instability can only be prolonged by holding the
7 These are the units found appropriate by theBoard in General Electric Company, 89 NLRB
726, at 782, 785, and 786, and which have been included in the contracts between the Employer
and the UE since that time.
8General Electric Company, supra.
9 A. C Lawrence Leather Company, 108 NLRB 546; International Harvester Company,
108 NLRB No. 91.
LLOYD A. FRY ROOFING COMPANY 1297
existing contract a bar. Accordingly, where the expulsion
of a labor organization from its parent has been followed
by disaffiliation at the local level for reasons related to
the expulsion, . . . the Board will find that a schism exists
which warrants directing an immediate election notwith-
standing the existence of a contract with the union suffering
the schism which would otherwise bar a determination of
representative.
The facts in the present case, in my opinion, sufficiently meet
the new schism test. In October 1949, at the annual convention
of the CIO, the UE was expelled from the CIO because of alleged
communistic domination and objectionable political activities.
In November 1953, the membership of UE Local 429 formally
disaffiliated from the UE for reasons relating, inter alia, to
such political activities of the UE. Specifically, the record
shows that disaffiliation from the UE was voted by the union
membership, 316 to 48, at special meetings following due and
proper notice as to the purpose of the meeting; that the great
majority of officers and stewards of the former local joined
in the disaffiliation movement; that after the disaffiliation, a
new local was chartered by the IUE-CIO; and that the new local
notified the Employer of its claim to represent the employees,
resulting from the transfer of affiliation. That substantial con-
fusion now exists as to the identity of the employees' bargain-
ing representatives is evident. I would therefore find, on schism
grounds, that the contract is not a bar. to
Member Peterson concurring:
For the reasons stated by Member Murdock, I agree that the
contract in this case does not bar an immediate election.
10 See A. C. Lawrence Leather Co . and International Harvester Co., ibid.
LLOYD A. FRY ROOFING COMPANY and LOCAL 504, GEN-
ERAL WAREHOUSEMEN, SHIPPERS, PACKERS, RECEIV-
ERS, STOCKMEN, CHAUFFEURS AND HELPERS, INTER-
NATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUF-
FEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA,
A.F.L.,.Petitioner. Case No. 1-RC-3412. June 10, 1954
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF
REPRESENTATIVES
On February 25, 1954, pursuant to a Decision and Direction
of Election of the National Labor Relations Board,' an election
by secret ballot was conducted under the direction and super-
1107 NLRB 1327.
339676 0 - 55 - 83
108 NLRB No. 178.