Michigan Bell Telephone Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 21, 1949

85 N.L.R.B. 303 (N.L.R.B. 1949)

In the Matter of MICHIGAN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY, EMPLOYER AND
PETITIONER and MICHIGAN DIVISIONS No. 43 AND 44, COMMUNI-
CATIONS WORKERS OF AMERICA (AFFILIATED WITII THE CIO), UNIONS
Cases Nos. 7-RM11-23, 7-RM-24, and 7-RM-t5. Decided July 21,1949
DECISION
AND
ORDER
Upon separate petitions duly filed, a consolidated hearing was held
before Cecil Pearl, hearing officer of the National Labor Relations
Board. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. The Employer's
request for oral argument is hereby denied, as the record and briefs
filed by both parties in our opinion, adequately present the issues and
the positions of the parties.
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 Unions are labor organizations claiming to represent
employees of the Employer.
3. The alleged question concerning representation :
The Employer and the Unions have collective bargaining agree-
ments covering the employees of the Employer's Traffic Department,
Accounting Department, and Plant Department, named in the instant
petitions. These agreements were executed for a period of 1 year.
The contract covering employees of the Traffic and Accounting De-
partments has a termination date of December 15, 1949, while the con-
tract pertaining to Plant Department employees is to terminate on
December 30, 1949.
At the time these agreements were executed Communications Work-
ers of America, the parent national labor organization with which the
Unions are affiliated, herein called CWA, was an independent. How-
85 N. L. R. B., No. 58.
303
304 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ever on May 9, 1949, as the result of a referendum conducted among
CWA members, CWA was issued a charter by, and became an affiliate
of, the CIO. On May 10, 1949, the Employer advised the Union by
letter that it regarded the affiliation of CWA with the CIO as having
given rise to a question of representation, and suggested that the ques-
tion be resolved by the submission of new dues check-off authorization
cards. The Employer further stated that pending resolution of the
alleged question of - representation, it would withhold the checked-
off dues and place them in escrow. Receiving no reply to its letter, the
Employer filed the present petitions on June 3, 1949.
The Unions contend that their recent contracts described above bar
a present determination of representatives.'
The Employer, on the other hand, contends that the affiliation of
CWA with the C10 has so changed the character of the contracting
unions as to create substantial doubt that they remain the chosen repre-
sentatives of its employees, and that in these circumstances the
contracts in question cannot bar an election at this time.
The Employer seeks to bring this case within one of the exceptions
to the Board's general policy that in the interest of industrial stability
it will permit a valid subsisting collective bargaining agreement to
bar, for a reasonable period, a new determination of representatives
among the employees covered by such agreement. That exception has
arisen in cases in which a change in the structure or affiliation of the
contracting union so modified the character of that union that a real
doubt arose as to whether it remained the labor organization which the
employees desired to represent them. In such cases, the Board has
directed that the doubt be resolved by an immediate election, despite
the existence of the contract.'
We do not view this principle as in any way applicable to the facts
in the instant case. In all of the cases relied upon by the Employer
something considerably more substantial than a mere change in the
affiliation of the contracting union's parent organization, such as is
present here, had occurred. Thus, in many of these cases,, the facts
disclosed a schism in the contracting union, resulting in the establish-
ment of a new union which challenged the representative status of the
I The Unions also argue that no "claim" has been made upon the Employer for recognition
as the representative -of the Employer's employees within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1)
(B), and therefore the Board is without jurisdiction to entertain an employer petition.
As we are dismissing the petitions on another ground, hereinafter discussed, we find it
unnecessary to rule upon this contention.
2 See cases cited, infra, footnotes 3 and 4.
3 For example, see Matter of Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company, Columbia Chemical Division,
80 N. L. It. B. 1331 ; Matter of Jasper Wood Products Company, Inc., 72 N. L.' R. B. 1306 ;
Matter of Foley Lumber d Export Corporation, 70 N. L. It. B. 73; Matter of Carson Pirie.
Scott & Company, 69 N. L. It. B. 935; Matter of Sealed Power Corporation, 41 N. L. R. B.
1225. '
MICHIGAN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY 305
existing local'. In others of these cases,4 the old contracting union
abandoned its representative status or was voted out of existence by its,
members. It is true that in some instances the schism in, or demise of,
the contracting union was provoked by a change in the affiliation of
that union or of its parent organization. But we are aware of no
case in which the Board applied the rule here urged by the Employer
where a change in affiliation of the parent union, without more, was all
that occurred.
The record in the instant case is barren of. any evidence that the
affiliation of CWA With the CIO has had any effect upon the struc-
ture, functions, or membership of Divisions 43 and 44, CWA, the
local contracting Unions. So far as appears in the record, the officers,,
constitution, bylaws, and bargaining authority of these Unions re-
main unaffected by the affiliation. There has been no schism in these
Unions; and no other labor organization intervened in this proceeding
to challenge their representative status.
In these circumstances we perceive no reason for not regarding the
1948 collective bargaining agreements between the Employer and
Divisions 43 and 44, CWA, which have a substantial period yet to run,
as bars to a present determination of representatives .5
Accordingly, we find no question affecting commerce exists concern-
ing the representation of employees of the Employer, within the
meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act,,
and we shall therefore dismiss the petitions.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the entire record in this case, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the petitions filed in the instant
matter be, and they hereby are, dismissed.
ME31BER HOUSTON took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Order.
For example , see Matter of Riggs Optical Company, Consolidated, 77 N. L. R. B. 265;.
Matter of Illinois Gear & Machine Company, 53 N . L. It. B. 179; Matter of Brenizer Trucking
Company, 44 N. L. R. B. 810; Matter of Olive & Myers Manufacturing Company, 59.
N. L. R. B . 650; Matter of United Stove Company , 30 N. L. It. B. 305.
5 The Employer also contends that the absorption of the Telephone Workers Organizing-
Committee, CIO, by CWA, as a result of the affiliation of CWA with the CIO, and the•
proposed amalgamation of Divisions 43 and 44 raise substantial doubt as to the identity
of the labor organization which the employees desire to represent them. We find no merit
in these contentions . There is no indication that the absorption of TWOC locals by CWA
will in any way change the organizational structure of CWA and, in any event , there is no-
evidence that any employees of the Employer are represented by local of TWOC. As to the-
proposed amalgamation of Divisions 43 and 44, CWA, the record indicates that such a
merger is wholly prospective, for a referendum on the issue has not been completed and'
testimony at the hearing shows that, in any event, the amalgamation would not take place-
prior to the expiration of the existing contracts.