Mills Industries, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 15, 1954

108 N.L.R.B. 282 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

282 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
All our employees are free to become, remain, or refrain from becoming members of the
above-named Union, or any other labor organization, except to the extent that this right may
be affected by an agreement in conformity with Section 8 (a) (3 of the Act.
CLEARWATER FINISHING COMPANY,
Employer.
Dated ................ By..............................................................................................
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
MILLS INDUSTRIES, INCORPORATED and DISTRICT NO. 8,
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, AFL,
Petitioner. Cases Nos. 13-RC-3427, 13-RC-3428, and 13-RC-
3429. April 15, 1954.
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Jewel G. Maher,
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 Ac't.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent cer-
tain employees of the Employer.
3.' No 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, for the
following reasons:
The Petitioner seeks three separate bargaining units of the
Employer's painters, carpenters, and machine repairmen. The
Employer and the Intervenor (International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, Local 1031, AFL) contend that the units
sought by the Petitioner are inappropriate.
After an election and certification of representatives issued
by the Board,' the Petitioner, from 1944 to 1952, represented
all production and maintenance employees, including painters,
carpenters, and machine repairmen in a single bargaining unit.
In August 1952 an election was conducted by the Board in the
foregoing unit in which the Intervenor defeated the Petitioner
and the Intervenor was certified as Vie exclusive bargaining
representative for the same unit of employees formerly repre-
sented by the Petitioner.'
157 NLRB 467.
'2Case No 13-RC-2710.
108 NLRB No. 49.
MILLS INDUSTRIES, INCORPORATED 283
In effect , the Petitioner is now seeking to serve 3 separate
groups of employees from a broader bargaining unit which has
been in existence for over 10 years. In the recent American
Potash case ,3 the Board enunciated the following principle:
"A craft group will be appropriate for severance purposes
where a true craft is sought and where , in addition , the union
seeking to represent it is one which traditionally represents
that craft ." Assuming , without deciding , that the painters and
carpenters are craftsmen , it is clear , in view of the American
Potash principle , that the Petitioner is not qualified to repre-
sent tkiese employees.
The machine repairmen may properly be regarded as mem-
bers of a craft which the Petitioner has traditionally repre-
sented. Nevertheless , we are constrained to deny the Peti-
tioner's request for severance of these employees because the
record herein indicates that the Petitioner's representative
interest is mainly concerned with a desire to reestablish itself
as the plant ' s overall bargaining representative , rather than as a
craft representative. Shortly prior to the filing of its petitions,
the Petitioner distributed circulars to all employees it had
formerly represented urging them to reject the Intervenor as
bargaining representative and to authorize the Petitioner as
their plantwide representative so that an election may be con-
ducted by the Board. Apparently, it was unable to obtain suffi-
cient support in the plantwide unit and consequently requested
the Employer for recognition as the bargaining representative
only for the maintenance employees . A few days later, after
the Employer denied this request because of the existence of
its contract with the Intervenor , the Petitioner filed the three
separate petitions . We do not think that it would effectuate the
policies of the Act to permit our craft severance doctrine to
be utilized by a union in an effort to regain its prior repre-
sentative status on a piecemeal basis.4
Under all the circumstances, we find that the units sought by
the Petitioner are inappropriate and we shall therefore dis-
miss the petitions.
[The Board dismissed the petitions.]
Member Rodgers , dissenting in part:
I am unable to agree with my colleagues that the machine
repairmen are not entitled to a self-determination election in
this case . The majority reasons that the Petitioner is mainly
concerned with "a desire to reestablish itself as the plant's
overall bargaining representative , rather than as a craft
representative," and accordingly denies the petition. The fact
remains, however , that insofar as the machine repairmen are
concerned, the Petitioner in this case fully met the objective
standards set forth in our recent American Potash decision.
3Amertcau Potash & Chemical Corporation, 107 NLRB 1418
4Member Rodgers does not agree with the majority's denial of an election among the
machine repairmen, for the reasons set forth in his separate partial dissent.
284 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The majority concedes this when it states that "The machine
repairmen may properly be regarded as members of a craft
which the Petitioner has traditionally represented." What we
have then is a determination that probes a petitioning union's
motivation, and, on the basis of a wholly subjective appraisal,
denies that union and the employees it seeks to represent an
election to which they clearly are entitled in accord with the
Board's own objective standards. It is my sincere conviction
that the administrative arm of Government, of which we are
part, can function best through a firm adherence to objective
principles and to the objective application of those principles.
Feeling as I do, I cannot join in that portion of the majority's
decision which denies an election among the machine repairmen.
Member Beeson took no part in the consideration of the
above Decision and Order.
SHELL CHEMICAL CORPORATION and OIL WORKERS
INTERNATIONAL UNION, CIO, LOCAL # 5. Case No. 20-
CA-151. April 15, 1954
DECISION AND ORDER
The above-entitled proceeding stems from charges filed
November 19, 1948, and March 21, 1949, by the Union named
in the caption of this case, attributing to the Respondent Com-
pany the commission of unfair labor practices during and
immediately following the September to December 1948 oil
strike on the west coast. A complaint charging the Respondent
with violations of Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the Act issued
October 13, 1949, and after being fully litigated before Trial
Examiner Howard Myers, first came before the Board for
decision on the merits in the latter part of 1950. While the
case was thus pending before the Board, and on May 14, 1951,
the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in
N. L. R. B. v. Highland Park Mfg. Co., 341 U. S. 322, holding
that the Board had erred, as a matter of law, in considering a
complaint based upon charges filed by a union affiliated with
the CIO, where such complaint had issued (as was true in this
case at that time) on a date preceding the CIO's compliance
with the filing requirements of Section 9 (h) of the Act. In
accord with the Supreme Court's ruling, the Board by order
dated July 19, 1951, dismissed the October 13, 1949, complaint
in this case without disposing of the merits.'
'The CIO did not comply with the Act's filing requirements until December 22, 1949.
Pursuant to the Highland Park decision the Board dismissed all cases pending before it in
which complaints had been issued before December 22, 1949, on the basis of charges filed
by CIO affiliates.
108 NLRB No. 53.