Natvar Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 15, 1957

118 N.L.R.B. 1611 (N.L.R.B. 1957)

pondent, inter alia, challenges the authority of the Board to proceed
in this matter, and contends that the Respondent has been denied due
process." Without passing on the merits of the affirmative defenses,
we do not believe that Respondent should be foreclosed from urging
them in this proceeding.
In conclusion, we find, for reasons stated above, that the amended
answer, as modified and clarified by the Respondent's statement in
opposition to the General Counsel's motion on July 9, complies with
the Board's Rules, except in the respects noted in paragraphs 2 and 5,
above. We will accordingly deny the General Counsel's motion ex-
cept to the extent indicated in paragraph 2, above."
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, unless the Respondent, within 10 days
from the date of this Order, amends its amended answer by either (a)
stating which of the 79 persons for whom back pay is claimed in the
specifications were, or were not, discharged on July 10, or 11, 1957,
or (b) explaining why it cannot furnish this information, such 79
persons will be deemed to have been discharged on those dates by
Respondent and it will be precluded from introducing any evidence
to the contrary at the hearing in this case.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the General Counsel's motion of June'
13, 1957, as renewed on July 9, be, and it hereby is, denied in all other
respects.
s we note, in passing, Respondent's characterization of the back pay claimed in the
specifications as "grossly exaggerated" and as based upon "false and fraudulent state-
ments" of claimants . Such characterization . is difficult to reconcile with Respondent's
admission that the gross back-pay figures are accurate , exceptfor some relatively minor
corrections , and its assertion in paragraph I (B) of the amended answer that it has no
"knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief" as to the interim earnings and
deductible expenses of the claimants or as to their search for work.
O Respondent contends in its opposition to the motion that there is no authority in the
Board 's.Rules for - filing the instant motion. However, Section 102.51 e (c) of the Rules.
authorizes the Board , in an appropriate case, to grant the relief here sought by the
General Counsel. Such provision necessarily implies that the General Counsel may seek
such relief from the Board through an appropriate pleading.
Natvar Corporation and Stephen Huszar, Petitioner and United
Paperworkers of America , AFL-CIO.' . Case No. 29-RD-4.
October 15, 1957
DECISION AND ORDER'
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Alan Zurlnick, hear-
'We have been administratively advised that the Union, United Paperworkers of
America, AFL-CIO, and the International Brotherhood of Papermakers , AFL-CIO,
merged , effective March 8, 1957; and the merged name appears as United Papermakers
and Paperworkers of America , AFL-CIO.
I18 NLRB No. 223.
1612 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ing 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,2 the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The Petitioner, an employee of the Employer, asserts that the
Paperworkers, the labor organization currently recognized by the
Employer as the bargaining representative, is no longer the bargain-
ing representative as defined in section 9 (a) of the Act of the
Employer's employees.
3. The Paperworkers and the Employer moved to dismiss the
petition on the grounds that (1) their current contract is a bar to
this proceeding, and that, since the Petitioner, as an officer of Plastic
Workers Union, Local 307, hereinafter called Local 307, or suspended
Local 307, failed to comply with the filing requirements of Section
9 of the Act, he is estopped from raising the noncompliance of the Local.
307, and that (2) the Petitioner is fronting for a labor organization
which has not complied with the filing requirements of the Act.
Since we find the second contention dispositive of the issues we
shall not consider the question of the contract bar.
Pursuant to the Board's Decision and Direction of Election,' the
United Paperworkers of America, CIO, was certified by the Board
on October 11, 1954, for the unit of employees involved herein. Fol-
lowing this certification the Employer entered into a contract dated
November 8, 1954, with the Paperworkers on behalf of its Local 307,
expiring November 8, 1956. A second and current contract between
the same parties was signed January 10, 1957. Representatives of
the Paperworkers and the officers of Local 307 were signatories to
both contracts. At no time during these periods was Local 307 in
compliance.
The Petitioner herein, Steve Huszar, was, at all times mentioned
above, president of Local 307. Upon the expiration of the 1954
contract on November 8, 1956, Local 307, under Huszar's leader-
ship, conducted a strike which was neither authorized nor approved
by its parent, the Paperworkers. The strike was settled December
29, 1956, and the current contract signed as stated by both the repre-
sentatives of the Paperworkers and the officers, including Huszar,
of Local 307. On January 29 the Paperworkers suspended "the
autonomy of Local 307" and appointed a trustee and administrator
of its affairs. The suspension was for failure to give notice of the
November-December strike to the area director and for failure to
request or receive authorization. The administrator appointed a.
2 The request of United Papermakers and Paperworkers of America , AFL-CIO, herein-
after called Paperworkers or the International , for oral argument before the Board is
hereby denied , as the record and briefs adequately present the issues and positions of
the parties.
3 109 NLRB 1278.
NATVAR CORPORATION 1613
plant committee to act for him in all collective-bargaining matters
with the Employer and on February 18 the attorneys for the Paper-
workers wrote Huszar demanding an accounting and the surrender
of all records, property, books, etc. Huszar did not comply and on
February 20 lie filed the decertification petition. On March 8, Hus-
zar wrote the Employer demanding that it continue to forward dues
and initiation fees collected to the duly authorized officers of Plastic
Workers Union, Local 307. This letter was signed by Huszar and
by the suspended Local's vice president, its treasurer and its record-
ing secretary. Also, Huszar and the other officers asked for a meeting
with the Employer and at that meeting demanded that the Employer
recognize their group instead of the International. On March 13
the members of the suspended Local conducted a mass meeting in
front of the Employer's plant and at this meeting Huszar assured
Lorentz, the plant manager, that the employees "would live up to
the contract as is." Huszar has repeatedly claimed to represent 106
employees, a majority of the bargaining unit.
Although the defection of the members of the suspended Local was
never formalized by disafliliation,4 the purpose of decertification is
manifest. By retention of the books, records, and funds of Local 307,
the demand upon the Employer for recognition of their group and
payment to them of dues and initiation fees, the avowal that the officers
were authorized to act on behalf of a majority of the employees, the
assurance that the contract would be administered according to its
terms, Huszar and the other officers, together with the employees
they represented, unequivocally evidenced their intention to con-
tinue as the bargaining entity. With the legal status of the sus-
pended Local vis-a-vis the International or the administrator of
Local 307 we are not concerned.5 We find the officers and members
of suspended Local 307 who have not acknowledged the suspension
constitute a de facto labor organization 6 which is not in compliance
with the filing requirements of the Act.' It seeks the benefits which
would accrue from the decertification of the International and the
Petitioner herein, as president of such organization, is acting on its
behalf.. Accordingly, we shall dismiss the petition.'
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
MEMBER RODGERS took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Order.
' Iluszar testified that at a meeting of 307 called by the International in January or
February 1957, a motion to disaffiliate was made and rescinded , whereupon some 50 or
60 members walked out. No vote was taken to the motion.
5 Sperry Gyroscope Company, 88 NLRB 907.
O Continental Baking Company, et at., 99 NLRB 777, 778.
7 After his appointment as administrator, Edward F. Masterson effectuated compliance
with the Act by submitting his non-Communist affidavit as sole officer of Local 307. The
officers of the suspended Local have made no effort to comply.
e Wood Parts, Inc., 101 NLRB 445, 448.