Int'l Assn. of Bridge, Iron Workers

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 25, 1974

211 N.L.R.B. 1010 (N.L.R.B. 1974)

1010 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
International Association of Bridge , Structural and
Ornamental IIron Workers, AFL-CIO! and Iron
Workers Shopmen 's Local No. 828 of the Interna-
tional Association of Bridge , Structural and Orna-
mental Iron Workers, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case
5-RC-8816
June 25, 1974
DECISION ON REVIEW, ORDER, AND
DIRECTION OF SECOND ELECTION
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND JENKINS
Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election
issued by the Regional Director for Region 5 on
January 11, 1974, an election by secret ballot was
conducted on February 7, 1974, under his direction
and supervision, among the employees in the
appropriate unit. At the conclusion of the election,
the parties were furnished with a tally of ballots
which showed that there were approximately 63
eligible voters and 56 cast ballots, of which 24 were
for, and 32 against, the Intervenor,' with no
challenged ballots. Thereafter, the Intervenor filed
timely objections to conduct affecting the results of
the election.
In accordance with the National Labor Relations
Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8 , as amended,
the Regional Director caused an investigation of the
issues raised by the objections. On March 15, 1974,
the Regional Director issued a Supplemental Deci-
sion and Certification of Results of Election in which
he overruled the Intervenor's objections in their
entirety. Thereafter, the Intervenor, in accordance
with Section 102.67 of the Board's Rules and
Regulations , filed a timely request for review of the
Regional Director's Supplemental Decision and
Certification of Results of Election, contending that
he erred in overruling the objections.
By telegraphic order dated April 8, 1974, the
National Labor Relations Board granted the Interve-
nor's request for review with respect to Objection 1,
and denied its request for review with respect to
Objection 2. Thereafter, Intervenor filed a brief on
review.
Pursuant to the provisions of $ection 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the entire record in this
case with respect to the issue under review and
makes the following findings:
The Petitioner in this case, Iron Workers Shop-
men's Local No. 828 (hereinafter referred to as Local
828) is a chartered local union of the International
Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental
Iron Workers, AFL-CIO (hereinafter referred to as
the International). Local 828 filed a petition seeking
to represent office and clerical workers employed by
the International, its own parent labor organization.
Local 2, Office and Professional Employees Interna-
tional Union, AFL-CIO (hereinafter referred to as
Local 2 or the Intervenor), intervened at the
representation hearing, produced a showing of
interest with respect to the employees sought in
Local 828's petition, and moved to expunge Local
828 from the ballot on the ground that it was not
competent to represent employees of its Internation-
al.
In his Decision and Direction of Election, the
Regional Director found that Local 828 was subject
to the constitution of the International, which
provides for control and participation by the general
president and general executive board of the Interna-
tional in various activities of its local units. Some of
the specific local union activities which are subject to
International control and approval are strikes,
settlement of strikes, proposed collective-bargaining
agreements , and final drafts of all agreements and
amendments. The International's constitution also
confers the general president with the authority to
order a subordinate body to disband or cease any
practice considered against the best interests of the
International under penalty of revocation of charter.
Based on these facts, the Regional Director correctly
concluded that Local 828 had allegiances that
conflict with its purpose of protecting and advancing
the interests of the employees it sought to represent.2
Accordingly, he found Local 828 not competent to
bargain concerning the terms and conditions of
employment of the Employer's employees and did
not accord it a position on the ballot. Since Local 2
presented a showing of interest with respect to the
employees sought and expressed its desire to proceed
to election, the Regional Director directed an
election be held with Local 2 appearing on the ballot.
On January 30, 1974, 8 days before the election, the
Employer, the International, distributed a memoran-
dum to "ALL OFFICE EMPLOYEES" in which the
International president, John H. Lyons, stated that
the "NLRB" had removed the name of Local 828
For reasons more fully set forth below, the Regional Director found
that the Petitioner was not competent to represent the employees sought,
and, therefore , Petitioner was not accorded a position on the ballot.
However, the Intervenor , Local 2 , Office and Professional Employees
International Union, AFL-CIO, having presented a proper showing of
interest , expressed its desire to proceed to election and an election was
directed by the Regional Director, with only the Intervenor on the ballot.
2 See Welfare and Pension Funds, 178 NLRB 14; General Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers ofAmerica Local 249, affiliated with
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
Helpers of America 139 NLRB 605.
211 NLRB No. 138
INTL. ASSN. OF BRIDGE, IRON WORKERS 1011
from the ballot because of a "technicality" raised by
Local 2. Lyons noted that the Regional Director's
decision was based on the existence of the restrictive
provisions in the International constitution, but
indicated that the Regional Director was "aware of
the authority of this International Association to
waive those type of provisions .... `The memoran-
dum further stated that' it had never even occurred
to either the General Executive Board , or to those
who were conveying the wishes of our employees in
requesting the charter, that the International Officers
would even consider for a second invoking such
provisions." President Lyons concluded the memo-
randum with the following:
I have received inquiries as to what are the
realities of the present situation. I can best answer
those inquiries in the following manner. The
record of the desires of our employees is clear up
to this point. You have established a local union,
adopted bylaws and elected officers who are well
equipped to serve your interests and properly
represent you. Notwithstanding the confusion of
the recent developments , many of which are set
forth above, I would hope you would continue to
support the officers that you have elected.
In its Objection 1, Local 2 contended that Lyons'
memorandum was an implied promise to recognize
and bargain with an incompetent union if the
employees voted against Local 2 in the up-coming
election. In refusing to set the election aside on the
basis of the first objection, the Regional Director
found that the memorandum was merely an expres-
sion of the Employer's preference between compet-
ing Unions without accompanying threats or promis-
es of benefits. We disagree. We believe the memoran-
dum could reasonably be construed by the employ-
ees that if they rejected Local 2 in the election the
Employer would recognize Local 828, despite the
Board's findings with respect to the incompetency of
that organization. This, in our view, constituted
serious interference with the orderly operation of our
election processes and was conduct bordering on
contempt for the Regional Director's decision in this
proceeding. Accordingly, we sustain Objection 1 and
shall set aside the election and direct a new one.
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the election conducted
herein on February 7, 1974, be, and it hereby is, set
aside.
[Direction of Second Election and Excelsior foot-
note omitted from publication.]