Radio Frequency Connectors Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 10, 1960

126 N.L.R.B. 1076 (N.L.R.B. 1960)

1076 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and conditions of employment of its employees , thereby discouraging membership
in the Union, and thereby has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and ( 7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
Radio Frequency Connectors Corporation ; Automatic Metal
Products Corporation 1 and Local 485, International Union of
Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, Petitioner.
Case No. 2-RC-10226. March 10, 1960
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 William C. Haemmel, hear-
ing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Chairman Leedom and Members Bean and Fanning].
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 Petitioner seeks a unit comprising the employees of both
Radio Frequency and Automatic. Radio Frequency, Automatic, and
Local 815 moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that their cur-
rent contracts between Local 815 and each of the companies are a bar.
The Petitioner denies that either contract is a bar. The motion to
1 Herein called Radio Frequency and Automatic , respectively.
' Because of our finding below that the contract between Radio Frequency and Local 815,
International Production Service and Sales Employees Union, hereinafter called Local 815,
is a bar as to Radio Frequency , it is unnecessary to determine whether , as contended by
the Petitioner, Radio Frequency and Automatic constitute a single Employer for unit
purposes
8 At the hearing , Local 815 was allowed to intervene on the basis of a contract interest
in the employees of 'both Radio Frequency and Automatic , relying, in part, on its claim
to have succeeded to the contractual rights of Metal, Plastic, Miscellaneous Sales, Novelty
and Production Workers, Local 222, hereinafter called Local 222 The Petitioner moved
to deny such intervention on the ground that Local 815 is not a successor .to Local 222.
This motion was referred to the Board. The record shows that in January 1959, Local
222 joined with other unions to form Local 815. In March 1959, Radio Frequency and
Automatic were notified that Local 815 was the bargaining representative of their em-
ployees and since that time Radio Frequency has executed a contract with Local 815 for
its employees and Automatic has treated Local 815 as the successor to Local 222's rights
in a contract between it and Automatic expiring November 2, 1960. In these circum-
stances , we find that Local 815 has a sufficient contractual interest in the employees of
Radio Frequency and Automatic to warrant its intervention herein The Petitioner's
motion is hereby denied . See United States Gypsum Company, 114 NLRB 185, footnote 1,
and cases cited therein.
126 NLRB No. 128.
RADIO FREQUENCY CONNECTORS CORPORATION , ETC. 1077
dismiss is granted as to Radio Frequency and denied as to Automatic
for the following reasons :
On March 16, 1959, Local 815 executed a contract with Radio Fre-
quency effective until March 16, 1961. Petitioner offered no evidence
in support of its contention that the contract is not a bar, and, as
the contract, on its face, conforms to Board requirements and covers
all employees of Radio Frequency until March 16, 1961, we find it is
a bar to the petition insofar as it relates to the employees of Radio
Frequency.4
On November 3, 1958, Local 815's predecessor, Local 222, signed a
contract with Automatic effective until November 2, 1960. Petitioner
contends, inter alia, that this contract contained illegal provisions.
This contract contains a welfare clause applicable only to "members
of the union," and a wage schedule applicable only to "union em-
ployees."' The contract was signed by the president of Automatic,
the president of Local 222, and eight other members of Local 222's
bargaining committee. As already stated in footnote 3, above, on
January 28, 1959, during the term of the contract, Local 222 and
other unions joined to form Local 815. On March 9, 1959, Automatic
was notified by Local 815 that it was the bargaining representative
of its employees, and since that time Automatic has recognized Local
815 as the representative of its employees. In March or April 1959,
the 1958 contract between Automatic and Local 222 was purportedly
amended by deleting the words "members of the Union" from the
welfare clause quoted above, and by deleting "union employees" from
the wage schedule.
The original wage and welfare provisions of the contract limited
their benefits to union members and as the Keystone case states that
the Board will not recognize the effectiveness of any amendments
deleting such illegal clauses, we find that the contract is not a bar.6
4In its brief , the Petitioner asserts that Local 815 is not the successor to Local 222
and that , as Radio Frequency negotiated with Local 815 on the assumption that it was
such successor , the resultant contract is no bar We find no merit in this contention, as
we do not inquire into the motives which guided Radio Frequency in its negotiations
with Local 815. Moreover , this argument relates essentially to possible unfair labor
practices not cognizable in this proceeding.
c The pertinent provisions of the contract are as follows :
Welfare Clause.
The Employer hereby agrees to pay three percent ( 3%) of the gross earnings of
all employees covered by this Union contract to Industrial Production Workers
Local #222 , Welfare Fund , for the purpose of financing a Welfare Plan for the
benefit of employees of the Employer , members of the union . [ Emphasis supplied.]
Wage Schedule.
Effective November 3, 1958 , all union employees are to receive a ten cent ( 100) per
hour increase over and above their basic hourly wage . Effective November 3, 1959,
all union employees are to receive an additional increase of seven and one-half (7%)
per hour over and above their basic hourly wage at the time [Emphasis supplied ]
e Keystone Coat , Apron it Towel Supply Company, at al., 121 NLRB 880, 884. Also
see Food Haven Inc., 126 NLRB 666.
1078 DEcL IO S OF ^ NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS. BOARD,
i Accordingly, we find that a question affecting commerce- exists con
cerning the representation of employees of Automatic' within the
meahing,df Section=:9(c) (1)':-and Section 2(6)' and (7) of the Act'
4. The following employees of Automatic Metal Products Corpora-
tion at its New York,-, New York, plant,: constitute a unit appropriate
for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Sec-
tion' 9 (b) of the Act:
All production, and maintenance employees including-shipping, die,
tool, and screw-machine operators, but excluding office clerical em-
ployees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act.'
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
7In' view of our 'determination herein , we need not consider the Petitioner's other
objections to the contract.
The unit finding, conforms to a "stipulation of the parties.
Stein, Hall and Company, Inc.' and International Brotherhood
of `Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen , and Helpers of
America, Local Union No. 71, Petitioner. Cage No. 11-RC-1317.
March 10, 1960
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 Jerold B. Sindler, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from
prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Chairman Leedom and Members Bean and Fanning.]
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 organization involved claims to represent certain em-
ployees 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.
4. Except as indicated below, there is no dispute as to the ap-
propriateness of the production and maintenance unit requested by
the Petitioner. The Petitioner contends that the Employer' s six lead-
men should be excluded from the unit because they are supervisors;
the. Employer; contends .that they `are not supervisors and should be
=The" name of the Rmployer appears as amended at the hearing.
1'26 NLRB No. 127.