Muskin Manufacturing Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 7, 1955

114 N.L.R.B. 1307 (N.L.R.B. 1955)

MUSKIN MANUFACTURING CO., INC. 1307
of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, or discourage membership in
the International Union of Electrical , Radio and Machine Workers of America,
CIO, or any other labor organization , except as authorized by Section 8 (a) (3)
of the Act.
WE WILL jointly and severally with the Perfection Manufacturing Corpora-
tion make Albert Lesnak whole for any loss of pay he suffered as a result of
the discrimination against him.
LOCAL 1139, UNITED ELECTRICAL , RADIO AND
MACHINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, IND.,
Labor Organization.
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.
Muskin Manufacturing Co., Inc. and United Furniture Workers
of America, CIO, Petitioner . Case No. 4-RC-2687. December 7,
1955
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Bernard Samoff, 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 I finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. The Intervenor herein, Local 1119, United Textile Workers of
America, AFL, contends that its existing contract with the Employer,
effective May 18, 1954, through December 31, 1956, is a bar to a pres-
ent determination of representatives. The Petitioner argues that the
contract is not a bar to the proceeding on the ground, among others,
that there is a schism in Local 1119 and this orgnnization is, in fact,
defunct. In support of its position, the Petitioner relies primarily
upon the alleged action taken by the membership of Local 1119 at a
special meeting held on April 22, 1955. Although the record reveals
that this meeting was a duly constituted meeting attended by about
70 of approximately 100 members of Local 1119 and was called for
the express purpose of disaffiliating from the AFL and affiliating
with CIO, there is conflicting testimony as to what transpired at the
meeting. The Petitioner's witnesses testified that immediately after
the opening of the meeting a resolution to disaffiliate was read and
seconded, that there was formal discussion on this resolution, that a
vote by a showing of hands was taken on the resolution, and that the
' Members Murdock and Bean did not participate in this Decision and Order.
114 NLRB No. 199.
1308 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tally of the votes showed 64 employees for the resolution, 4 against,
and 2 abstentions. The Intervenor's witnesses testified, however, that
there was much turmoil and confusion at the meeting and that, al-
though a resolution to disaffiliate was read, no formal discussion was
had on the resolution and no vote was taken. Although there is this
conflict in the testimony concerning the action taken at the meeting,
the uncontroverted evidence clearly reveals that at the time of the
meeting there existed considerable dissatisfaction among some mem-
bers of Local 1119 concerning their representation by the AFL. The
evidence further shows that immediately after the meeting all of the
Local's officers resigned their positions and transferred their allegiance
to the CIO. The record also shows, however, that despite the existing
dissension and the apparent desire of some members to disaffiliate from
the AFL, Local 1119, as part of the AFL and under new officers elected
shortly after the meeting to disaffiliate, continued to hold regular
meetings and continued to administer the terms of the existing con-
tract. From April 22, 1955, to the date of the hearing in the case,
June 29,1955, Local 1119 processed in excess of 20 employee grievances.
Further, the Employer continues to regard Local 1119 as the exclusive
bargaining representative of the employees in the unit.
Accordingly, even assuming arguendo that the Petitioner's version
of what transpired at the meeting of April 22 is correct, on the above
facts we find that Local 1119 is not defunct but that it continues to
function as a labor organization-ready, willing, and able to admin-
ister its contract with the Employer. Further, the fact that employ-
ees, in formalized action, express dissatisfaction with their collective-
bargaining representative is not by itself sufficient reason for applying
the "schism" doctrine; before applying this doctrine, the Board must
be convinced that the bargaining relationship is so confused that no
stabilizing purpose would be served by applying the contract-bar rule.
As Local 1119 continues to function and to administer its existing con-
tract and is recognized by the Employer as the exclusive bargaining
representative of the employees, we find that a departure, in the instant'
case, from the usual contract-bar rule on the ground of schism is not
warranted.2
The Petitioner argues further that the existing contract is not a
bar to the proceeding on the ground that the Employer allegedly
checked off dues from the employees' wages without the employees'
written authorization, contrary to the checkoff provisions in the con-
tract and the requirements of Section 302 of the Act. For the reasons
stated in Crown Products Company, 99 NLRB 602, we find no merit
in this argument.
The Petitioner also contends that the contract is not a bar for the
alleged reason that it was executed prior to the time when the Employer
,'The Weatherhead Company . Antwerp Division, 108 NLRB 717.
DOVER INDUSTRIAL CHROME, INC. 1309
had commenced its normal operations. Although the record reveals
that the Employer has expanded its operations and now produces cer-
tain items that it did not produce at the time the contract was executed,
it appears that when the contract was executed a substantial percentage
of the current employee complement was employed and that all cur-
rent employee classifications were represented. Accordingly, we find
that the changed circumstances in the Employer's operations do not
remove the contract as a bar.'
Upon the basis of the foregoing, we find that the existing contract
between the Intervenor and the Employer is a bar to a present deter-
mination of representatives and that therefore 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. Accordingly, we shall dismiss the petition.
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
3 As the existing contract has been in effect for only 18 months , we find it unnecessary
at this time to pass upon the Petitioner's contention that the contract is not a bar to a
representation proceeding after the expiration of 2 years from date of its execution.
Dover Industrial Chrome , Inc. and Chicago Amalgamated Local
758, International Union of Mine , Mill & Smelter Workers,
Petitioner . Case No. 13-IBC-4538. December 7, 1955
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 Rush F. Hall, 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 Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain
employees of the Employer.'
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:
The Employer is an Illinois corporation engaged in industrial
chrome plating. The Petitioner seeks to represent the production
and maintenance employees at the Employer's Chicago, Illinois, plant.
The Employer and the Intervenor contend that they have a current
contract which is a bar to an election. The Petitioner asserts that
i Metal Polishers , Buffers, Platers & Helpers International Union , Local No. 6, AFL,
herein called the Intervenor, intervened at the hearing on the basis of a contract interest.
114 NLRB No. 201.