Telex, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 8, 1950

90 N.L.R.B. 202 (N.L.R.B. 1950)

In the Matter of TELEx, INC., EMPLOY ER and INTERNATIONAL UNION
or ELECTRICAL, RADIO AND MACHINE WORKERS OP AMERICA, C. I. O.,
PETITIONER
Case No. 18-RC-591.-Decided June 8, 1950
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before Erwin A.
Peterson, 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 National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members
Houston and Styles].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
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
employees of the Employer.
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:
The Petitioner seeks a unit of all production and maintenance
employees, at the Employer's hearing aid manufacturing plant in
Minneapolis, Minnesota. The Intervenor, the United Electrical,
Radio and Machine Workers of America, Local 1139, has been the
recognized bargaining representative of the Employer's employees
since 1939, and has executed a number of contracts with the Employer.
The most recent one was entered into on May 20, 1949, effective date
April 1, 1949, to run to April 1, 1951. The Intervenor asserts that
the current contract is a bar to further proceedings in this matter.
The Petitioner, on the other hand, contends that the contract is not
a bar because a schism in the membership of the Intervenor at this
plant creates a doubt concerning the continued representation of the
Employer's employees by the Intervenor. The Employer takes no
position on this issue.
,90 NLRB No. 43.
202
TELEX, INC. 203
The Intervenor is an amalgamated local whose membership includes,
together with the employees of the Employer, some 1,200 employees
of approximately 50 different employers with whom the Intervenor
has collective bargaining agreements in the Minneapolis, Minnesota,
area. These contracts are separately negotiated and signed by each
of the different firms. Each plant which is represented by the Inter-
venor has a shop committee and shop steward who handle and admin-
ister certain aspects of the local plant contract. The Intervenor,
however, has one set of officers to carry on the business of the local
and the Intervenor participates and assists in the administration of
each plant contract.
On February 7, 1950, about 2 months after the expulsion of the
U. 'E. from the CIO, the members of the Intervenor, at a spacial
membership meeting, voted to remain within the U. E. The record
indicates that after this meeting the shop committee and steward at
the Employer's plant joined the IUE, distributed IUE authorization
cards to the Employer's employees, and processed grievances with
the aid of the IUE. However there is no evidence of the Employer's
employees having met and formally voted to reject the decision made
by the majority of the Intervenor's members at the February 7 meet-
ing. Nor does it appear that the Intervenor is incapable of adminis-
tering the contract at the Employer's plant or has otherwise become
defunct so far as this plant is concerned.1
The Petitioner apparently relies upon certain cases 2 in which,
despite existing contracts, we have directed elections for the purpose
of resolving the question of representation. Unlike the situation
presented in those cases, however, this case reveals no formalized
collective action by the Employer's employees at a general shop meet-
ing resulting in disaffiliation from the Intervenor, which has con-
tinued to function. At the most we find a series of individual
withdrawals from the Intervenor by a segment of the Intervenor's
members, accompanied by an effort on the part. of these employees to
process grievances in the name of the Petitioner. In this situation,
we do not find such confusion in the normal bargaining relationship
between the Employer and the exclusive bargaining representative
of its employees that the relations between them no longer promote
stability in industrial relationships. Under these circumstances we
find no reason to deviate from fixed contract bar rules.3 Accordingly,
1 On the contrary , there is evidence that the Intervenor , after the February 7 meeting,
attempted to process certain grievances with the Employer.
2 Boston Machine Works Company , 89 NLRB 59 , and cases cited therein.
2 Pacific Gamble-Robinson Company , 89 NLRB 43 . Cf. J. J. Tourek Manufacturing
Co., 90 NLRB 5, in which the Board applied the schism doctrine where : (1) The
members of an amalgamated local at a particular plant held their own meeting and voted
for disaffiliation ; ( 2) the employees at the plant involved had been given considerable
204 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
we find that the contract constitutes a bar to the present proceeding
and we shall therefore , dismiss the petition.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition filed by the International
Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America, CIO,
be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
autonomy in the administration of the amalgamated contract; and (3 ) the amalgamated
local was incapabie of administering the contract at the plant involved. We regard that
case as distinguishable on these facts.
a