Illinois Farm Supply Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 5, 1959

123 N.L.R.B. 52 (N.L.R.B. 1959)

52 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
It having been further found that the Union violated Section 8(b) (2) and (1) (A)
of the Act by threatening to enforce provisions of its constitution or bylaws in such
a way as to condition employment on the payment of sums equivalent to assessments
or fines for nonpayment of periodic dues, and to condition employment on the
payment of a reinstatement -fee predicated upon a prehire arrearage, it will be
recommended, among other things, that the Union cease and desist from engaging
in this conduct.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in
the case, the Trial Examiner makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Local 600, Highway & City Freight Drivers, Dockmen & Helpers, affiliated
with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
Helpers of America, is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act.
2. The Union has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8(b)(1) (A) and (2) of the Act.
3. The Company has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (a)(3) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
Illinois Farm Supply Company and Francis J. Evanchik, Peti-
tioner. Case No. 13-RD-370. March 5,1959
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a decertification petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the
National Labor Relations At, a hearing was held before Richard B.
Simon, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hear-
ing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-mem-
ber panel [Chairman Leedom and Members Bean and Fanning].
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 Petitioner, 'an employee of the Employer, asserts that the
International Association of Machinists, AFL-CIO, and the Ameri-
can Federation of Grain Millers, AFL-CIO, which were certified by
the Board on November 19, 1957, as the joint representative of the
Employer's employees, are no longer such representative.'
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section
9(c) (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
American Federation of Grain Millers, AFL-CIO (hereinafter
called Grain Millers), and International Association of Machinists,
AFL-CIO (hereinafter called IAM), were jointly certified Novem-
i District 50, United Mine Workers of America, intervened at the hearing on the basis
of a card showing.
123 NLRB No. 7.
WONDERKNIT CORPORATION 53
ber 19, 1957, as the representative of the Employer's production and
maintenance employees. On December 12, 1958, the instant petition
for decertification was filed with the Board. TAM did not appear at
the hearing on the petition, but 2 days after the hearing it filed a
written statement with the hearing officer, disclaiming any interest in
representing the employees. However, the Grain Millers stated at
the hearing that it desires to represent all the employees in the
stipulated unit, whether or not IAM participates in the election.
Under these circlmistances, we will not place IAM on the ballot as
it has effectively disclaimed. However, we will place Grain Millers
and District 50 on the ballot.'
4. The following employees of the Employer constitute a unit ap-
propriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning
of Section 9 (b) of the Act :
All production, maintenance, and warehouse employees at the Em-
ployer's Springfield, Illinois, feed plant, but excluding office clerical
employees, professional employees, truckdrivers, laboratory tech-
nicians, watchmen, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act.'
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
3As District 50 is not in compliance with Section 9(f), (g), and (h) of the Act, we
shall merely certify the arithemetical results should it win the election unless prior to
the date when certification would issue it has achieved compliance, in which case the
Regional Director is instructed to issue a certification of representative to District 50.
8 The unit is the same as that previously certified by the Board.
Wonderknit Corporation and Virginia Textile Workers Union,
Independent , Petitioner . Case No. 5-RC-92593. March 5, 1959
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Louis B. Wallerstein, 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 Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel [Chairman Leedom and Members Bean and Fanning].
1 At the hearing, the Employer requested the Board and the Petitioner to produce evi-
dence of the Petitioner's compliance with Section 9(f), (g), and (h) of the Act. The
hearing officer and the Petitioner refused to comply with the request to dismiss the peti-
tion because of the absence of any evidence at the hearing that the Petitioner had com-
plied. However, any matters relating to the determination of the adequacy of compliance
with Section 9(f), (g), and (h) are questions for administrative determination and are
not cognizable in this proceeding. We are presently administratively satisfied that the
Petitioner is in compliance. The Employer's motion to dismiss the petition is, therefore,
denied. See Desaului.ers and Company, 115 NLRB 1025, and Standard Cigar Con1pan4j,
117 NLRB 352.
123 NLRB No. 14.