J. J. Tourek Manufacturing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 31, 1950

90 N.L.R.B. 5 (N.L.R.B. 1950)

In the Matter of J. J . TOURER MANUFACTURING Co., EMPLOYER and
INTERNATIONAL UNION OF ELECTRICAL , RADIO, AND MACHINE WORK-
ERS, CIO , PETITIONER
Case No. 13-RC-1028.-Decided May 31,1950
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before Ivan J.
McLeod, 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 organizations involved claim to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. The Amalgamated contends that a current collective bargaining
agreement between it and the Employer is a bar to this proceeding.
The Petitioner asserts that the contract is not a bar because a schism
in the membership of the Amalgamated at this plant creates a doubt
concerning the continued representation of the Employer's employees
by the Amalgamated. The Employer is neutral.
The Amalgamated is an amalgamated local whose membership
includes together with employees of the Employer some 5,000 em-
ployees of approximately 28 employers with whom the Intervenor has
collective bargaining agreements in the Chicago, Illinois, area.
In the case of the Employer, the Amalgamated has had a series of
contracts confined to the employees of the Employer at its one and
only plant involved in this proceeding. These contracts have custom-
arily been enforced by the shop stewards ,2 employees of the Employer,
who have also handled grievances in the first stages.3 Until November
22, 1949, the Amalgamated actively functioned as the bargaining rep-
resentative of the employees of the Employer, under the terms of an
' At the hearing , United Electrical, Radio , and Machine Workers of America, and Its
Local 1114 , herein called the Amalgamated , moved to dismiss the petition upon the ground
that a contract is a bar to this proceeding . For reasons hereinafter stated the motion is
denied.
2 There are normally seven stewards in the plant.
8 The autonomy of the employees of the Employer within the framework of the Amal-
gamated is further indicated by the fact that all but one of the , signatories to the contract
on behalf of the Amalgamated were employees of the Employer.
90 NLRB No. 4.
5
6 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
agreement which will not expire until August 31, 1950. On November
22, 1949, a meeting of the employees of the Employer was called for
the purpose of determining whether they desired to disaffiliate from
the Amalgamated .4
The disaffiliation meeting, which was held in 2 sections-one for the
day shift, and the other for the night shift-was attended by 115
employees.,' All the attending employees comprising employees of the
Employer voted unanimously to disaffiliate from the Amalgamated
and to affiliate with the Petitioner.6 Thereafter, on November 25,1949,
there was circulated among the plant employees a petition 7 which was
then presented to the Employer. The petition notified the Employer
that the signatories had disaffiliated from the Amalgamated and de-
manded that the Employer should hold all dues withheld for Novem-
ber 1949 and all dues thereafter until a new bargaining agent should
be selected. Following the affiliation of this seceding group with the
Petitioner, the latter then demanded recognition from the Employer.
The Employer declined to grant recognition but has withheld the
dues pending the Board's determination in this proceeding.
Since the disaffiliation, all grievances formerly processed by shop
stewards who were employees of the Employer, have been handled by
such former shop stewards of the Amalgamated but in the name of
the•Petitioner.5 Moreover, the Amalgamated at the date of the hear-
ing on February 6, 1.950, had not appointed other stewards to replace
the regular shop stewards, all of whom withdrew their membership
from the Amalgamated following the vote of disaffiliation. Likewise
there is no evidence that any subsequent meetings of employees of the
Employer have been called by, or on behalf of, the Amalgamated; nor
has the Amalgamated otherwise made any attempt since the disaffilia-
tion to enforce the contract with the Employer. It would appear from
the uncontested evidence in the record that there is now no one in the
plant representing the Amalgamated and that for all practical. pur-
poses the Amalgamated is a defunct organization at this particular
.plant.9
4 This meeting was called as the result of the action taken at the CIO constitutional
convention , more fully described in General Motors Corporation, 88 NLRB 450.
There are approximately 196 employees in the unit.
s There is no evidence in the record showing the number of employees who were members of
the Amalgamated prior to the disaffiliation.
7 The petition contained approximately 123 signatures.
B Since 1949 no grievances have gone beyond the first step of the grievances procedure, 1. e.,
beyond the stewards.
See Schaefer Body, Inc ., 85 NLRB 195; Boston Machine Works Company, 89 NLRB 59.
J. J. TOUREK MANUFACTURING CO. 7
To establish schism we normally require formalized collective action
at a union meeting affecting the existence or continued functioning of
the union concerned.10 In view, however, of the fact that the Union
here involved is an amalgamated local and the autonomy accorded the
employees at this plant," the scope of the action taken here, when con-
sidered with the fact that the Amalgamated is not administering the
contract in the customary manner and is to all intents and purposes
not now a functioning bargaining agent for this group of employees,
makes clear that to treat the contract as a bar to a present determina-
tion of representatives would not promote stability in bargaining rela-
tions with the Employer. It would, rather, seriously impede the prac-
tice of collective bargaining which the Act vas designed to foster and
protect. We therefore believe that the conflicting claims to representa-
tion of the two labor organizations involved can best be resolved by an
election.
We find that a question affecting commerce exists concerning 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. The following employees of the Employer constitute a unit ap-
propriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the mean-
ing of Section 9 (b) of the Act:
All production and maintenance employees including apprentices
at the Employer's plant, but excluding guards, timekeepers, students,
office clerical employees, engineering employees, and supervisors as
defined in the Act.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION 12
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the pur-
poses 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
"Pacific Gamble-Robinson Company, 89 NLRB 293.
11 The autonomy of the employees at this plant is, in our opinion, conclusively shown
by the fact that the contract between the Amalgamated and the Employer has been ad-
ministered by the plant employees themselves acting through their own shop stewards.
"Either participant in the proceeding herein may , upon its prompt request to, and
approval thereof by , the Regional Director , have its name removed from, the ballot.
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
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 International Union of Electrical, Radio, and Machine Workers,
°CIO, or by United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of Amer-
ica, Local 1114, or by neither.