Standard Oil Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 6, 1960

127 N.L.R.B. 656 (N.L.R.B. 1960)

656 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Standard Oil Company and International Union of Operating
Engineers, AFL-CIO' and Local 725, International Union of
Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO,2 Petitioners . Cases Nos. 18-
RC-2412 and 18-RC-3169. May 6, 1960
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER
Following an election conducted pursuant to a Decision and Direc-
tion of Election of the Board,' Operating Engineers was certified
on May 6, 1955, in Case No. 18-RC-2412, as the collective-bargaining
representative of a unit of operating and maintenance employees at
the Employer's Mandan, North Dakota, plant. Following an elec-
tion conducted pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon con-
sent election, Local 725 was certified on May 23, 1957, in Case No.
18-RC-3169, as the collective-bargaining representative of a unit of
office clerical employees at this same plant. Thereafter, under date
of February 5, 1960, Independent Oil Workers Union Local No. 10,
herein called Local 10, filed with the Board a motion to amend cer-
tifications, and subsequently filed a supporting affidavit, requesting
that the certifications issued in these cases be amended to show that
the name of the bargaining representative had been changed to
Independent Oil Workers Union Local No. 10. Neither the Employer
nor Operating Engineers objects to the motion, and Operating Engi-
neers has advised the Board that the charter of Local 725 has been
revoked.
In support of its motion, Local 10 alleges in substance that: (1)
Since the certifications all bargaining with respect to both units has
been carried on solely by officers of Local 725, who have executed all
agreements resulting from such bargaining in the name of Local 725;
(2) pursuant to a notice mailed on January 23, 1960, a meeting of
Local 725 was held on January 27, 1960, for the purpose of voting on
whether to disaffiliate from Operating Engineers, whether to change
its name to Local 10, whether to transfer its assets, including its con-
tracts with the Employer, to Local 10, and whether to affiliate with
Independent Oil Workers; (3) 138 of the 181 members of Local 725
voted on these questions by secret ballot, the vote being 137 to 1 in
favor of disaffiliating, changing the name, and transferring the assets,
and 136 to 2 in favor of affiliating with Independent Oil Workers;
(4) the former officers of Local 725 are now the officers of Local 10,
which has been chartered by Independent Oil Workers ; and (5)
since the meeting 178 of the 181 former members of Local 725 have
i Herein called Operating Engineers The name of the Operating Engineers is amended
in the caption to reflect the merger in 1955 of the American Federation of Labor and
Congress of Industrial Organizations.
2 Herein called Local 725.
8 Unpublished
127 NLRB No. 77.
STANDARD OIL COMPANY 657
applied for membership in Local 10 and executed dues-deduction
authorizations in its favor, revoking any such authorizations in favor
of Local 725.
It is clear from the foregoing that the allegations contained in
Local 10's motion involve an alleged transfer of affiliation from the
representatives which the employees have selected to a wholly differ-
ent labor organization, having no ties to the selected representatives.
Such allegations constitute an attempt to raise a question concerning
representation which Local 10 requests that we resolve by amending
the certifications. However, the Board has consistently held that
the Act and Board policy require that such matters be determined
through the filing of a petition and a secret-ballot election.4 The fact
that the motion in this particular instance is unopposed does not in
our opinion detract from the sound policy considerations underlying
this requirement-that the Board should not lend its imprimatur to
a transfer between unaffiliated labor organizations of the rights which
flow from a Board certification unless the employees involved have
expressed themselves in favor of such a transfer by secret ballot in
an election conducted with the safeguards surrounding Board-
conducted elections.
In these circumstances, therefore, and in accord with well-
established Board policy, we shall deny the motion.
[The Board denied the motion.]
CHAIRMAN LI] mox, dissenting:
I must dissent from my colleagues' refusal to grant the motion in
these cases . I cannot agree that, in the circumstances, the motion
attempts to raise a question concerning representation; accordingly,
the precedent on which they rely is inapposite.
It is uncontroverted that the employees in the two units voted over-
whelmingly to disaffiliate from Operating Engineers; to change the
name of Local 725 to Local 10, and to affiliate with Independent Oil
Workers. In addition, unlike the situation prevailing in the cases
cited by the majortiy, the other interested parties have no objection
to the motion. I cannot, therefore, agree that the allegations of the
motion constitute an attempt to raise a question concerning representa-
tion. The existence of a question concerning representation depends
upon a doubt as to a claimed majority status or, at the very least,
upon the desire of some party for an election to establish such ma-
jority status. The question of affiliation or lack of affiliation of par-
ticular unions has never been deemed relevant to that issue. Here,
no party seeks an election or doubts Local 10's claimed majority status
as a continuation of the existing representative.
4 Drennon Food Products Co, 120 NLRB 624, and cases cited therein
560940-61-vol. 127----43
658 , DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
I would, accordingly, on the basis of the uncontroverted allegations .
concerning the employees' actions, and the absence of opposition,
grant the motion in order to effectuate the policies of the Act to pro-
mote orderly collective bargaining.
MEMBER BEAN took no part in the consideration of the above Sup-
plemental Decision and Order.
Hardin's Bakeries, Incorporated and Retail , - Wholesale and
Department Store ' Union, AFL-CIO. Case No. 15-CA-1510.
May 9, 1960
DECISION AND ORDER
On February 18, 1960, Trial Examiner C. W..Whittemore issued.
his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair
labor, practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in thecopy of the
Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent.
filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and ,a supporting brief
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 [Members Rodgers, Bean, and Fanning].;
The Board has reviewed the -rulings made by the Trial Examiner at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the entire
record in this case, including the Intermediate Report and the.-excep-
tions, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner, with the following modification.'
ORDER
Upon the entire record in this proceeding, and pursuant to Section
10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National
Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Hardin's
Bakeries, Incorporated, Meridian, Mississippi, its officers, agents, -
successors, and assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discouraging membership in Retail, Wholesale and Depart-
ment Store Union, AFL-CIO, or in any other labor organization, by
'Contrary to the Respondent 's arguments , we have adopted the - Trial Examiner's
credibility findings for we are not convinced by a clear preponderance ofall the relevant
evidence that his credibility resolutions are incorrect. Ainsworth Precision Castings
Company, Division of Harsco Corp., 125 NLRB 601.
Although Member Rodgers agrees with this conclusion , he would not to !any degree rely,,
as did the Trial Examiner , upon the small size of the Respondent ' s plant to establish the
Respondent ' s knowledge of the union activity of Gibson and Borden , the two discriminatees.
For the finding of knowledge Member Rodgers would rely solely upon the credited testi-
mony of Gibson and Berden as to threats made prior to discharge and statements made at
the time of the discharges.
127 NLRB No. 76.