Great Lakes Industries, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 6, 1959

124 N.L.R.B. 353 (N.L.R.B. 1959)

CADMIUM & NICKEL PLATING, ETC. 353
Cadmium & Nickel Plating , Division of Great Lakes Industries,
Inc. and Metal Polishers , Buffers, Platers & Helpers Interna-
tional Union, AFL-CIO, Local #67, Petitioner. Case No.
21-RC-5643. August 6, 1959
ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR WITHDRAWAL
OF PETITION
On May 8, 1959, the Board, more than 30 days after the filing of
the petition herein and in accordance with its policy of processing
representation proceedings without regard to whether they were
filed in violation of interunion no-raid pacts, directed an election in
the unit found appropriate in the above-entitled case.' The Board
issued its Decision and Direction of Election notwithstanding an um-
pire's finding that the organizational efforts of the Petitioner, herein
called the Metal Polishers, were contrary to the AFL-CIO no-raiding
agreement and impinged upon the established bargaining relation-
ship of the Intervenor, Processors' & Fabricators' Union, Local 802,
AFL-CIO, affiliated with International Union of Doll & Toy Workers
of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO, herein called Toy Work-
ers. The election was conducted on May 28, 1959, under the direction
and supervision of the Regional Director for the Twenty-first Region.
At the conclusion of the election, the parties were furnished a tally of
ballots which showed that of the approximately 71 eligible voters, 53
were for the Metal Polishers, none voted for the Toy Workers, 13
voted for no union, and 1 cast a challenged ballot. On June 3, 1959,
the Toy Workers filed timely objections to the election with the Re-
gional Director, based largely on the propriety of holding an election
in derogation of the no-raid pact. After investigation of the objec-
tions, the Regional Director on July 28, 1959, issued his report on
objections recommending that the objections be overruled and that
a certification of representatives be issued to the Metal Polishers. An
extension of time to file exceptions to the report on objections has
been granted.
Meanwhile, on May 28, 1959, the Toy Workers instituted a suit
against the Metal Polishers in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of California seeking, under Section 301 of
the Act, the specific performance of the umpire's ruling under the no-
raid pact and the withdrawal by the Metal Polishers of its representa-
tion petition herein. The Board's Regional Director was made a party
defendant to the suit as an interested party. Both defendants moved
to dismiss the court proceedings because the relief sought interfered
with the Board's exclusive jurisdiction over representation proceed-
1 Unpublished.
124 NLRB No. 50.
525543-60-vol. 124-24
354 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ings. Thereafter, on June 26, the Metal Polishers filed a request with
the Board for leave to withdraw the representation petition herein.
Attached to this request was a copy of a telegram from the Metal
Polishers' International ordering it to withdraw from the Employer's
plant or be expelled from the AFL-CIO 2 The Metal Polishers also
filed a motion with the District Court for leave to withdraw all oppo-
sition to the Toy Workers' suit. The District Court proceedings were
postponed to Alib st 10, 1959, to afford the Board the opportunity to
rule on the Metal Polishers' request for withdrawal of the petition
herein.
The Board has thoroughly reviewed and considered the entire rec-
ord in all of the proceedings before it and the court and, for the
reasons herein set forth, the Metal Polishers' request to withdraw its
representation petition herein is denied, and the objections filed by the
Toy Workers will be processed in the customary manner.
In the first instance, we find, and the record shows, that the Metal
Polishers' withdrawal request is not voluntary but is due to the com-
pulsion exerted under, and arising from, the AFL-CIO no-raid pact.
Up until the receipt of the telegram, attached to the withdrawal re-
quest, the Metal Polishers had clearly evinced a desire to represent
the Employer's employees involved herein. The telegram shows that.
the executive council of the AFL-CIO has ordered the Metal Pol-
ishers either to withdraw its claim to represent the employees at the
Employer's plant, or to be expelled from the AFL-CIO ; and it further
shows that the executive board of the Metal Polishers' International
has decided to remain in the AFL-CIO rather than be expelled and
has ordered the Metal Polishers to withdraw its petition. In short,
but for this compulsion arising from the AFL-CIO no-raid pact, it
appears that the Metal Polishers would still desire to represent the
Employer's employees.
Secondly, although we recognize that the no-raiding agreement
eliminates many interunion disputes, to allow the withdrawal of the
petition under the circumstances herein would be to permit a private
resolution of the question concerning representation in a manner con-
trary to the policies of the Act and would impinge upon the Board's
exclusive jurisdiction and authority to resolve such questions of rep-
resentation. Thus, the AFL-CIO no-raid pact restricts employee free
choice. Here the Toy Workers had been the incumbent for several
2 This telegram reads as follows : LOUIS L . LAUFMAN BUS AGT METAL POLISH-
ERS BUFFERS PLATERS & HELPERS INTL UNION LOCAL 67, 1015 WEST
OLYMPIC BLVD LOSA EXECUTIVE COUNCIL OF AFL-CIO HAS ORDERED
POLISHERS TO WITHDRAW FROM CADMIUM & NICKEL PLANT OR. BE EX-
PELLED FROM AFL-CIO MATTER TAKEN UP WITH OUR EXECUTIVE BOARD
WHICH VOTED UNANIMOUSLY TO REMAIN IN AFL-CIO AND WITHDRAW
FROM CADMIUM & NICKEL PLANT I HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO ADVISE YOU
TO INFORM BOARD THAT POLISHERS UNION DESIRES TO WITHDRAW ITS PE-
TITION AND HAVE ELECTION NULLIFIED. RAY MUEHLHOFFER
MINUTE MAID CORPORATION 355
years, and its most recent contract had expired. Under normal Board
policy, an appropriate occasion for the employees to redetermine their
representative had arisen. Yet the AFL-CIO no-raid pact would
require the employees to keep the Toy Workers or else forego repre-
sentation by a union affiliated with the AFL-CIO.
Thirdly, the result reached by application of the no-raid pact ap-
pears to be contrary to the wishes of the Employer's employees as
shown by the election results-the Metal Polishers received an over-
whelming majority, and Toy Workers not a single vote. The Regional
Director recommended overruling the Toy Workers' objections.
While no certificate has yet been issued because of the pending objec-
tions, permitting the withdrawal request would enable the Toy Work-
ers to assert with impunity a claim to represent employees who, the
election results show, no longer desire representation by the Toy
Workers.
Accordingly, the Metal Polishers' request is denied, and certification
will be issued to the Metal Polishers as the representative of the Em-
ployer's employees should it be found that the Toy Workers' objections
to the election are without merit.'
[The Board denied the Petitioner's request to withdraw the
petition.]
3 Although the Board in Personal Products Corporation, 122 NLRB 563 , permitted the
withdrawal with prejudice of a representation petition , in a situation caused by the
no-raid pact , the petitioner was acting pursuant to a court order specifically enforcing
the pact. ( United Textile Workers v . Textile Workers Union, 258 F. 2d 743 (C.A. 7),
1958 .) However, in permitting the withdrawal, the Board noted it was not a party to
the court litigation and that it did not acquiesce in the decision of the United States
District Court, or of the court of appeals.
Minute Maid Corporation and International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America,
Cannery, Citrus Workers, Drivers, Warehousemen and Allied
Employees, Local 444. Case No. 1P-CA-305. August 7, 1959
DECISION AND ORDER
On October 24, 1958, Trial Examiner Arthur E. Reyman issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair
labor practices and recommending that the Respondent cease and
desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in
the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. The Trial
Examiner also found that the Respondent had not engaged in certain
other alleged unfair labor practices.' Thereafter, the General Counsel
' As no exception was taken thereto , we adopt the recommendation of the Trial Ex-
aminer that the complaint be dismissed insofar as it alleged that the Respondent dis-
124 NLRB No. 47.