Safrit Lumber Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 23, 1954

108 N.L.R.B. 550 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

550 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
5. It appears that District 5, IFLWU, has participated in bar-
gaining for the employees involved. In the case of Safrit Lumber
C_o., 108 NLRB 550, the Board has found that District 5 is a
labor organization which is required to comply with the filing
requirements of Section 9 (f), (g), and (h) of the Act. The In-
tervenor's placement on the ballot is conditioned upon District
5 IFLWU as well as Local 310 IFLWU and IFLWU being in
compliance with the filing requirements of the Act. If any one
of these organizations fails to meet the requirements, the
Intervenor's name will not appear on the ballot.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
Member, Peterson, concurring:
I think it is unnecessary to apply the schism doctrine in this
case. It appears to me somewhat strained to hold that the 1950
expulsion of the Intervenor by the CIO bears a causal relation-
ship to the disaffiliation action of the employees in 1953. In this
connection, I note that the employees in 1952 were agreeable
to having the Intervenor continue as their bargaining repre-
sentative as evidenced by the current contract negotiated in their
behalf. Doubtless the indictment of Ben Gold, the Intervenor's
international president , was the proximate cause of the dis-
affiliation movement. But I question whether that brings the
case within the Board ' s schism doctrine.
However, I concur in the result reached by my colleagues
because the contract asserted as a bar is about to expire. The
effective date of the automatic renewal clause is less than 30
days away, and the termination date is July 13, 1954.
SAFRIT LUMBER COMPANY, INC. and INTERNATIONAL FUR
& LEATHER WORKERS UNION OF THE U. S. AND CANADA,
Petitioner. Case No. 11-RC-583. April 23, 1954
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 Lewis Wolberg,
a 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 mean-
ing of the Act.'
'Chairman Farmer and Member Rodgers concur in the asserting of jurisdiction in this
case, but are not to be deemed thereby as agreeing with the Board's past jurisdictional
standards as a permanent policy.
In asserting jurisdiction Member Murdock and Peterson rely on Stanislaus Implement
and Hardware Company, Ltd., 91 NLRB 618
108 NLRB No. 42.
SAFRIT LUMBER COMPANY, INC. 551
2. The Petitioner is a labor organization which claims to
represent certain employees of the Employer.
The Petitioner was represented at the hearing by its Inter-
national Representative John Russell who also has the title of
Director of District 5, International Fur & Leather Workers
Union of the United States and Canada . Russell stated that no
organization subordinate to the Petitioner was involved in this
proceeding . He gave testimony , however , concerning District 5
and District Council 5.
This testimony reveals that District 5 , when first established,
functioned as a labor organization , holding conferences and
conventions , electing its own officers and making its own
policies , receiving per capita tax from various local unions
which were part of the District , and acting to negotiate contracts
and organize workers. District Council 5 was the governing
body of the District between yearly conventions , and the
Council's officers were, in effect , an exgcutive committee for
District 5. The position of district director was filled by ap-
pointment by the international president ; and the position of
secretary -treasurer of the District was filled by election at
district conventions . According to Russell , however , District 5
went out of existence as a functioning organization about 1951
or 1952 and is now merely a geographical designation of part
of the Petitioner . District Council 5 , too, Russell testified, is
defunct and met last in 1949 or 1950. The locals in the District
now pay per capita tax directly to the Petitioner and the
Petitioner finances District 5.
Russell's further testimony shows, however , that the charter
issued to District 5 has not been revoked ; that an active bank
account exists in the name of District 5 on which Russell and
Nathaniel Long may execute checks in their respective capac-
ities as director and secretary -treasurer of District 5; that an
international representative and organizer is paid by check
drawn on the District 5 bank account; that District 5 receives
rent for office space which it lets to a local union; that District
5 carries out the policies of the Petitioner as far as organizing
or negotiations are concerned ; and that Russell , as international
representative , continues to organize workers , negotiate con-
tracts, and settle grievances for employees , using his title of
district director ; that Russell uses District 5 letterheads in
communications to employers ; and that there have been con-
ferences inside the District since 1949 or 1950 of groups of
locals for the purpose of discussing wage negotiations involving
the locals. Moreover , Board records show that District 5 has
recently filed an unfair labor practice charge in another case. II
In view of the above, we conclude that District 5 continues to
function as a labor organization as it did in its earlier period.
We find that District 5 and District Council 5 are the same entity
and constitute a labor organization within the meaning of Sec-
2 Nelson Tanning Co., Case No. 39-CA-365.
552 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tion 2 (5) of the Act which is required to comply with the filing
provisions of Section 9 (f), (g), and ( h) of the Act.'
Accordingly , the holding of the election directed herein is
conditioned on the compliance of District 5 with the filing re-
quirements of the Act. The direction of election is also subject
to the notice to show cE.use which the Board issued April 20,
1954 , concerning the compliance status of International Fur &
Leather Workers Union of United States and Canada. No election
shall be held unless District 5 and the Petitioner are in com-
pliance.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerningthe rep-
resentation of employees of the Employer withinthe meaning of
Section 9 ( q) and Section 2 (6) and ( 7) of the Act.
4. The Employer is engaged in cutting , buying, processing,
and selling lumber . The Petitioner seeks a unit of all main-
tenance and production employees . Although the Employer
stated that it would take no position concerning the appropriate
unit, there was agreement - between the parties on exclusions
from the unit . We find that all maintenance and production
employees at the Employer ' s lumber operation located at
Beaufort , North Carolina , including the wood employees , truck-
drivers, caterpillar drivers, firemen , sawyers in the woods,
and sawman, but excluding the woods foreman , the officers of
the Employer , office . clerical employees , employees of con-
tractors , guards, professional employees , and supervisors as
defined in the Act , constitute a unit "appropriate for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9
(b) of the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election' omitted from publication.]
Member Beeson took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Direction of Election.
3 See United Tanners , Inc., 103 NLRB 760; Franklin Tanning Company , 104 NLRB 192.
4 Subject to the conditions set forth in paragraph numbered 2.
DECCA RECORDS, INC. (BRUNSWICK RADIO CORPORATION)
and INTERNATIONAL UNION OF ELECTRICAL, RADIO
AND MACHINE WORKERS, CIO, Petitioner . Case No. 35-RC-
888. April 23, 1954
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION and CERTIFICATION OF
REPRESENTATIVES
On February 2, 1954 , Hearing Officer Clifford L. Hardy duly
issued and served on the parties his report on objections to
conduct affecting election in the above-entitled proceeding,
finding that the evidence did not support the Petitioner's ob-
108 NLRB No. 76.