Standard Conveyor Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 22, 1955

114 N.L.R.B. 1447 (N.L.R.B. 1955)

STANDARD CONVEYOR COMPANY 1447
several States , and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing com-
merce and the free flow of commerce.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL, is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section-2 (5) of theAct.
2. By interfering with , restraining, and coercing employees in the exercise of
Tights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent has engaged in and is
engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the
Act.
3. 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.]
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the Labor Management
Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT interfere with, restrain , or coerce our employees in the exercise
of their right to join or support or to refrain from joining or supporting , Inter-
national Ladies ' Garment Workers ' Union , AFL, or any other labor organiza-
tion ; nor will we by interrogation , or threats of reprisals , or interference with
the selection of representatives , interfere with, restrain , or coerce employees in
the exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the National Labor Relations
Act.
MILHAM PRODUCTS COMPANYINC.,,
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.
Standard Conveyor Company, Petitioner and Local 1139, Inter-
national Union of Electrical , Radio, and Machine Workers,
CIO and Local 1139, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers Union of America,
AFL. Case No. 18-EM-187. T ecember 23,1955
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Max Rotenberg, 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 employees
of the Employer.'
3 international Association of Machinists , District Number 77, herein called the Machin-
ists , intervened on the basis of a showing of interest.
114 NLRB No. 227.
1448 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
3. No 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, for the following
reasons:
Local 1139, International Union of Electrical, Radio, and Machine
Workers, CIO, herein called the IUE local, contends that it has a
contract with the Employer which bars an election at this time. Local
1139, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen and Helpers Union of America, AFL, herein called the
Teamsters local, also contends that the contract is a bar, and it urges
that, by reason of the IUE local membership's action in changing
affiliation, the Teamsters local has succeeded to the contract rights of
the contracting union. The Employer, by its petition, seeks a deter-
mination as to the identity of the present bargaining representative
of the employees in the contract unit and urges that the contract does
not bar such a determination as between the labor organizations
named in the petition, namely, the IUE local and the Teamsters local,
but does bar intervention by the Machinists.
The IUE local was certified by the Board in November 1951 as the
exclusive bargaining representative of the employees in a unit, which
is stipulated to be the appropriate unit herein. In June 1955, the
IUE local, which is an amalgamated local representing employees of
11 employers, executed its latest contract with the Employer covering
the employees in the certified unit, for a 2-year term expiring May 31,
1957.2 It is this contract which is urged as a bar.
Subsequent to the execution of this contract, events transpired
which led to the present dispute as to the identity of the contract-
ing union. Late in July 1955, as a result of dissatisfaction between
the local and international IUE leaderships over local autonomy, the
local leadership, led by business agent Earl Drange, initiated discus-
sions with Teamsters officials relative to the degree of autonomy en-
joyed by Teamsters locals. These discussions culminated in a meet-
ing of August 30,1955, of the 15-man executive board of the IUE local,
at which meeting a resolution was unanimously adopted to recommend
to the local membership that it disaffiliate from the IUE and affiliate
with the Teamsters. On September 2, a Friday, Drange had notices
posted at the plants of 11 employers announcing a-special meeting for
September 6, the next working day. The notices did not state the
purpose of the meeting. However, it appears that some members were
informed orally of the meeting's purpose and on the morning of
September 6 a special issue of the IUE local's news publication was
2 This contract was negotiated and signed by officials of the TUE local and the shop
committee - at the Employer 's plant and was not signed by an IUE international union
representative.
STANDARD CONVEYOR COMPANY 1449
distributed at the various plants I apprising the membership of the
purpose of the meeting, the local leadership's support of the recom-
mended action, and the Teamsters' endorsement thereof.'
The September 6 meeting was held in 3 sections and attended by
about 500 of the total membership of approximately 800. One of the
sections was confined to members at the Employer's plant and was
attended by 215 of the 293 members there employed. This section
of the meeting was held not far from the Employer's plant at the
Rialto Theatre where the IUE local customarily held meetings. Al-
though certain Teamsters' representatives and many others whose
identity was not clearly established at the hearing, were congregated
near the entrance to the theatre, they did not enter the building while
the meeting was in progress .5 The vote on the resolution was not
counted separately for this section, but was combined with the vote
for the other sections. The combined tally of votes showed that 336
approved and 160 disapproved the resolution.
Since the September 6 meeting, the individuals formerly holding
official and executive board positions in the IUE local have held
corresponding positions in the new Teamsters local. On September
7, the Teamsters local notified the Employer of the action taken at
the meeting of the previous day and claimed successorship to the con-
tract rights of the IUE local. On September 9, the IUE inter-
national union advised the Employer that the IUE local continued
in existence and was available to administer the contract. On Sep-
tember 13, the IUE international union appointed a temporary presi-
dent and financial secretary for the IUE local. Although the de-
fecting local officials attempted to return the IUE's charter, the IUE
international union did not accept the charter but gave it to the newly
appointed temporary officers of the reconstituted IUE local. There-
after, on September 14, a meeting of the IUE local, attended by
230 to 250 employees of the Employer, was held at the Rialto Theatre
at which a 7-man shop committee was elected. Also, the IUE local
submitted to the Employer 263 checkoff authorizations for reduced
3 The publication was distributed to the night shift members at the Employer 's plant
just minutes before they entered the meeting place.
4 The likelihood that the TUE international union was aware of the disaffiliation move-
ment is evidenced by the following facts , On August 81, 1953, a meeting took place
between certain IUE international representatives and at least one member of the local
who was against disaffiliation . On September 1. James Carey , president of the TUE inter-
national union , telephoned Drange informing him that lie , Carey, would be in Minneapolis,
Minnesota, on September 8 to discuss current problems with the local leadership, and
requesting Drange to set up a meeting of the TUE local membership for that date . Finally,
a leaflet in opposition to any attempted disaffiliation action was circulated at all the plants
on September 6, which leafilet had been prepared by a field representative of the TUE.
' At a point early in the meeting , a motion was passed to invite IIess , the State CIO
president, to the meeting to speak against the resolution while Hess was being escorted
to the meeting his progress was blocked by the Teamsters' representatives, but he was
permitted to enter without further incident when the Teamsters ' representatives were
informed by Drange that Hess had been invited by the membership.
1450 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
'dues, the signatures for which authorizations were obtained between
September 12 and 20 by the 15 shop stewards, almost all of whom had
remained loyal to the IUE.' Since September 6, both the IUE local
and the Teamsters local have handled grievances with the Employer.
In its brief the IUE local, in support of its contract-bar contention,
claims that no schism occurred in the contracting union as a result
of the meeting of September 6, 1955, and that therefore no confusion
exists as to the identity of the bargaining representative under the
contract warranting an exception to the Board's contract- bar rule.
For the same reasons, the IUE local contends that the Teamsters
local's claim to successorship to the status of the contracting union is
without merit. We agree.
As indicated above, the posted notices of the special meeting of
September 6 did not state the purpose for which the meeting was being
held. We therefore find that, notwithstanding the giving of informal
notice of the meeting's purpose by word of mouth and by the dis-
traibution of leaflets on the meeting day, the meeting and the alleged
disaffiliation resolution do not satisfy the requirements of formalized
action which the Board has held to be a prerequisite to a true schism 7
Moreover, despite the defection of its leadership and part of its mem-
bership, the IUE local still remains as a functioning labor organiza-
tion ready, willing, and able to administer the contract.' In view
of our finding that the IUE local did not become defunct as a result
of the purported disaffiliation action, it follows that the Teamsters
local's claim to be the successor to the IUE local is without merit and
is rejected.9 We conclude that the bargaining representative of the
employees in the appropriate unit at the Employer's St. Paul, Min-
nesota, plant, is clearly identified as the IUE local, and that the exist-
ing contract between the IUE local and the Employer is a bar to a
present determination of representatives. Accordingly, we shall dis-
miss the petition.
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
MEMBER BEAN took no part in the consideration of the above De-
cision and Order.
°The Employer, on September 9, mailed a remittance for checked-off dues to the TUB
local , which remittance was held by the local post office and returned to the Employer.
Since then , the Employer has not remitted any dues.
7 See North American Aviation, Inc, 112 NLRB 1377; Aleo Manufacturing Company,
109 NLRB 1297; The Linde Air Products Company, 107 NLRB 1148; The Budd Company,
107 NLRB 115; West Steel Casting Company , 98 NLRB 153, Lewitte8 and Sons, 96
NLRB 775.
e Mnskin Manufacturing Co., Inc., 114 NLRB 1307; A 0 Smith Corporation, 107
NLRB 1415 ; C. Mathes Division of Lewin-Mathes Company , 105 NLRB 911 ; Central
Rufina, 105 NLRB 591; Allied Container Corporation , 98 NLRB 580
9 Cf The Louisville Railway Company , 90 NLRB 678; and cases cited therein at p. 682,
footnote 8.