Hoke, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 29, 1950

88 N.L.R.B. 1513 (N.L.R.B. 1950)

In the Matter of HOLE, INCORPORATED, EMPLOYER and AMERICAN
FEDERATION OF LABOR, PETITIONER
Case No,. 2-RC-1556.-Decided March 29, 1950
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before I. L. Broadwin,
hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are
free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members
Houston and Styles].
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 organizations involved claim to represent employees
of the Employer.
3. For the past 7 years, the Employer has bargained with the
United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America and its
affiliated locals as the representative of the Employer's production
and maintenance employees. The last contract between the Employer
and United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America, Local
423,1 herein called the UE, is dated August 21, 1948, and expired on
August 21,1949. On June 21,1949, the UE sent the Employer 60 days'
written notice that it terminated the 1948-49 contract, and that it
wished to negotiate a new contract. Beginning on August 1, 1949,
a number of collective bargaining conferences between the Employer
and the UE were held. No agreement was reached at any of these
conferences.
On August 22, 1949, Walter H. Jones, the Employer's attorney, and
a negotiating committee of the Employer's employees signed an exten-
sion agreement extending the 1948-49 contract to. August 22, 1950.
Some time later, the UE's representative signed a duplicate copy of
the extension agreement .2
1 Local 423 is an amalgamated union of 10 shops located in Passaic and Bergen Counties,
New Jersey.
2 The exact date of his signing cannot be determined from the record. Reel , the UE's
representative , testified that he signed it about August 26, 1949.
88 NLRB No. 255. 1513
1514 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On September 1, 1949, the Petitioner requested recognition as bar-
gaining representative for the Employer's employees, and on Septem-
ber 2 filed a petition with the Board.
On November 7, 1949, after a vote by the Executive Board of the
UE, a letter was sent to the attention of all chief stewards to "Notify
all shops to conduct a meeting to determine if they will stay with the
UE or go with CIO, or take any other action which seems necessary."
At a meeting on November 14, 1949, representatives of the UE and
the International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers,
CIO, herein called the IUE, addressed the Employer's employees.
On November 16, 1949, these employees voted by secret ballot on
whether to remain with the UE or to affiliate with the IUE. There
were 27 ballots cast, 12 of which were affiliating with the IUE, and
14 of which were blank.3 No one voted to remain with the UE.
No dues have been paid to the UE since October 1949, and no griev-
ances have been processed since that time. No meetings of the UE
have been held since November 16. Carter, the shop steward, testified
that he considered the UE at the Employer's plant to be defunct, and
that, to his knowledge, no union is now representing the Employer's
employees.
The UE argues that the August 22, 1949, extension agreement is
a formal contract, which was intended to continue in effect all of the
terms and conditions of employment for. the period from August 21,
1949, to August 22, 1950, and is a bar to the present proceeding. The
Employer asserts that there is no contract existing between the Em-
ployer and the UE 4 The IUE, an intervenor herein, claims that there
is an unresolved doubt as to the identity of the labor organization
which represents the employees, and that therefore any contract which
might otherwise be valid should not be held to bar an election. It also
desires an election.
We find it unnecessary to decide whether the extension agreement
of August 22, 1949, is a valid, binding contract. Even assuming the
validity of the contract, the evidence in the record establishes that
there is a substantial doubt as to the identity of the labor organiza-
tion which the Employer's employees desire to represent them. Under
analogous circumstances, the Board has repeatedly held that an exist-
ing contract is not a bar to the holding of an election to resolve such
a doubt.'
$ One ballot was marked "ABC."
' Jones testified that the Employer is not recognizing any union as the bargaining repre-
sentative for its employees, and is not recognizing any representative of the UE for the
purpose of dealing with the Employer concerning grievances.
5 Allbritten Motors, Inc., et al ., 87 NLRB 193; White Motor Company, 86 NLRB 380;
Sun Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Company, 86 NLRB 20; Fruehauf Trailer Company, 85
NLRB 1509; The Liquid Carbonic Corporation , Medical Gas Division, 85 NLRB 284;
HOKE, INCORPORATED 1515
Accordingly, we find that a question affecting commerce exists con-
cerning the representation of employees of the Employer within the
meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act..
4. All production and maintenance employees at the Employer's
Englewood, New Jersey, plant, excluding office and clerical employees,
guards, watchmen, professional employees, and supervisors, constitute
a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within
the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act e
DIRECTION OF ELECTION 7
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the
purposes of collective bargaining with the Employer, an election by
secret ballot shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later than
30 days from the date of this Direction, under the direction and super-
vision of the Regional Director for the Region in which this case was
heard, and subject to Sections 203.61 and 203.62 of National Labor
Relations Board Rules and Regulations, among the employees in the
unit found appropriate in paragraph numbered 4, above, who were
employed during, the payroll period immediately preceding the date
of this Direction of Election, including employees who did not work
during said payroll period because they were ill or on vacation or
temporarily laid off, but excluding those employees who have since
quit or been discharged for cause and have not been rehired or rein-
stated prior to the date of the election, and also excluding employees
on strike who are not entitled to reinstatement, to determine whether
they desire to be represented, for purposes of collective bargaining,
by American Federation of Labor, or by International Union of Elec-
trical, Radio & Machine Workers, CIO, or by United Electrical,
Radio and Machine Workers of America, Local 423,$ or by none of
these organizations.
Elizabethtown Water Company Consolidated , 84 NLRB 845 ; Hackensack Water Company,
84 NLRB 842 ; Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company, Columbia Chemical Division, 80 NLRB
1331.
6 This is substantially the same unit as covered by the 1948 contract between the Em-
ployer and the UE . The Employer takes no position as to the appropriate unit. The
Petitioner , the UE, and the IUE agree to the appropriateness of this unit.
7 Any participant in the election directed herein may, upon its prompt request to, and
approval thereof by , the Regional Director , have its name removed from the ballot.
s The compliance status of United Electrical , Radio and Machine Workers of America,
Local 423 , has lapsed since the hearing in this matter . The Regional Director is herewith
instructed to delete United Electrical , Radio and Machine Workers of America, Local 423,
from the ballot in the election directed herein if Local 423 has not, within 2 weeks from
this date , renewed its compliance with Section 9 (f), (g), and ( h). No election shall be
scheduled within the 2-week period allowed until and unless compliance has been
determined.