Haley Canning Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 22, 1954

107 N.L.R.B. 928 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

928 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
still wish to be represented by the Union. If ambiguity exists
as to the supervisory status of leadmen, it is resolved to
my satisfaction by the agreement made between the Union and
the Employer, only a year ago, that leadmen as a category
were not supervisors and could vote in an election, as in
fact they did, plus the fact that all leadmen are listed on the
Union's plantwide seniority list.
It seems quite clear to me that the majority here is strain-
ing to invoke a technicality in order to deny a substantial
group, at least 30 percent of the employees, an opportunity to
determine at an appropriate time whether the majority of the
employees still want to be represented by the Union. All
that we are called upon to determine is whether or not a free
and secret-ballot election should be conducted. Such an
election will be the test of the validity of the decertification
movement. I do not believe that this conclusive test should be
evaded by a hypertechnical dismissal of the petition. If the
Union is the majority representative, as it maintains it is,
the election will prove it. If it is not, the statute gives the
employees the express right to repudiate it at the polls.
Where in fact the decertification petition is inspired and filed
by supervisory personnel, a different situation is presented;
the discussion of this type of case in the majority opinion
therefore has no relevance here.
The extreme technicality of the majority position is exem-
plified by the fact that we would not hold a decertification
election on the unsupported petition of this leadman or any
other employees. The fact is that this petition had to be sup-
ported by the signatures of at least 30 percent of the rank-
and-file employees, and the record shows that actually 41
percent of the employees do support the petition. It seems to
me that the denial of this petition, on these facts, is an
unwarranted action.
I would, therefore, honor the petition and direct an election
in this proceeding.
Member Rodgers took no part in the consideration of the
above Decision and Order.
HALEY CANNING CO. and AUDRA CHAPMAN, Petitioner and
LOCAL 809, CANNERY WAREHOUSEMEN, FOOD PROCES-
SORS, DRIVERS & HELPERS UNION, AFL: Case No.
36-UD-13. January 22, 1954
DECISIONS AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (e) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Arthur J.
'Hereinafter called the Union.
107 NLRB No. 170.
CASEY WELDING WORKS 929
Hedges, 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 organization named below claims to represent
certain employees of the Employer.
3. We find that the petition in the case has been properly
filed and complies in all respects withthe provisions of Section
9 (e) of the amended Act.'
4. All cannery warehousemen, food processors, drivers,
and helpers at the Employer's Hillsboro, Oregon, plant, ex-
cluding all office clerical and professional employees , guards,
and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit ap-
propriate for the purposes of an election under the provisions
of Section 9 (e) of the Act.3
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
2 The hearing officer referred to the Board the Union's motion to dismiss the petition on the
ground that, as its contract with the Employer had expired on July 1, 1953, the petition was
untimely. This motion is denied. The contract between the Employer and the Union provides
that it shall remain in effect after its expiration date and until a new agreement is negotiated.
The record also shows that the union-security provisions of the contract are presently being
enforced. In these circumstances, we believe that a deauthorization election is appropriate.
Cf. Great Altantic & Pacific Tea Company, 100 NLRB 1494. As this contract has been con-
verted to one of indefinite duration contingent on negotiation of a new contract and that ne-
gotiations for a new contract were being conducted at the time of the hearing, Member Murdock
concludes that a deauthorization election under Section 9 (e) is authorized and timely. See
Member Murdock's dissent in Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, supra
3The Union moved to dismiss the petition because the unit petitioned for did not conform to
the unit description "set forth in the agreement between the Employer and the Union. We find no
substantial difference between the two unit descriptions. The motion is denied.
FRANK W. LADWIG d/b/a CASEY WELDING WORKS l and IN-
TERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BRIDGE, STRUCTURAL
AND ORNAMENTAL IRON WORKERS, LOCAL UNION NO.
507, AFL, Petitioner . Case No. 30-RC-906. January 25, 1954
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before F. T. Frisbey,
hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the
hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby af-
firmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds that no
question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
1 The Employer's name appears as corrected at the hearing.
107 NLRB No. 185.