The Magnavox Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 21, 1952

97 N.L.R.B. 1111 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

THE. MAGNAVOX COMPANY 1111
fact that the contract executed during the certification year contained
an illegal union-security clause at the time the petition was filed, as
well as the fact that during the certificate year, which has now passed,
the certified union took no steps to cure the defect in its contract, we
find that the petition was not untimely.6 The contract, in accordance
with the Board's contract bar rules ,7 is not a bar to a present deter-
mination of representatives."
We find that a question affecting commerce exists concerning the
representation of the Employer's employees within the meaning of
Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. In accordance with the agreement of the parties, we find that the
following employees of the Employer constitute a unit appropriate
for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section
9 (b) of the Act:
All production and maintenance, employees at the Employer's
Newark, Ohio, plant, including shipping department employees, but
excluding office and clerical employees, guards, professional employees,
and supervisors as defined in the Act.
5. We find in agreement with the parties that the following
employees, who were temporarily laid off on or about June 21, 1951,
have a reasonable expectation of reemployment, and are therefore
eligible to vote: Esther Amos, Doris Baker, Mary Dyar, Gloria
Elliott, Hermine Lascu, Ethel Rumburg, and Betty Shubrig. How-
ever, as it appears unlikely-that one Brady Patton will be recalled
because he is "physically incapable of doing the work," we find that
he is ineligible to vote .9
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
MEMBER HOUSTON took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Direction of Election.
0 Cf. Zenith Radio Corporation, 95 NLRB 1156 ; Ross Perrine, an individual doing busi-
ness under the trade name and style of National Heat Treat Company, 95 NLRB No. 144.
7 San Joaquin Compress and Warehouse Company, 95 NLRB 279; Charles E. Hires Co.,
New York Electric Water Cooler Division, 85 NLRB 1208.
8 This conclusion makes it unnecessary to consider the Paperworkers' contention that an
additional reason for holding the contract no bar is a schism in the membership of GBBA's
Local 271.
P Albion Malleable Iron Company, 90 NLRB 1640.
THE MAGNAVOX COMPANY and MAGNAVOX GUARD UNIT No. 1,
PETITIONER . Case No. 13-RC ff160. Januct y 21, 195.
Decision and Order
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Richard C. Swander,
97 NLRB No. 169.
1112 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
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 organization involved claims to represent 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 to represent a unit of guards at the Employer's
Fort Wayne, Indiana, plant. The Employer contends that the Peti-
tioner is "directly or indirectly" affiliated with Local 910, United
Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America, which admits to
membership employees of the Employer other than guards, and that it
is, therefore, under Section 9 (b) (3) of the Act, ineligible to be
certified as the collective bargaining representative of the Employer's
guards.
The guards sought herein were previously included in the produc-
tion and maintenance unit represented by Local 910. Upon the expi-
ration of their contract in June 1951, the Employer refused to continue
recognition of Local 910 as the representative of both the guards and
the production and maintenance employees. The guards thereupon
undertook to establish their own organization, which is the Petitioner
herein. The Petitioner held two organizational meetings at the meet-
ing place of Local 910, without being asked to pay any rental charge
although other organizations which used this meeting place were re-
quired to pay for its use. These meetings of the Petitioner were
attended by the president and secretary-treasurer of Local 910, who
assisted the organizers of the Petitioner in the election of officers and
in drafting and adopting a constitution and bylaws.'
Thereafter, Local 910 donated to the Petitioner the use of its office
supplies, facilities, and equipment, and had printed, at its own ex-
pense, the Petitioner's membership cards. The officers of Local 910
prepared, for approval and signature by the Petitioner's officers,
the correspondence which culminated in this proceeding. Although
the Petitioner has provided that its future meetings will be held, and
its mail received, at the home of its financial secretary-treasurer, it
has held no formal meeting since the two -organizational meetings,
and has collected no dues. The officials of Local 910 continued, upon
I The secretary -treasurer of Local 910 took the minutes of the first meeting At the
second meeting, she helped draft the constitution and bylaws by adapting those of Local 910.
BUILDERS EMPORIUM 1113
the request of the Petitioner, to serve as the advisers and patrons of
the Petitioner up to the time of the hearing herein.
The Board has held that assistance furnished a guards' union during
its infancy by a union admitting to membership employees other
than guards does not necessarily establish affiliation between the two
unions.2 The Board found, in such cases, that despite such assistance,
the guards were free to, and did, formulate their own policies and
decide their own course of action. In the instant case, however, ill
the approximately 4 months from its organization in June to the hear-
ing in October 1951, the Petitioner held no formal meetings and col-
lected no dues, nor is there any evidence that it has ever taken any
action without the assistance of Local 910 or its officers. Petitioner
has been continuously dependent upon Local 910 and its officers for
material aid as well as for advice and guidance. We believe that the
extent and duration of the Petitioner's dependence upon Local 910
and its officers indicates a lack of freedom and independence in for-
mulating its own policies and deciding its own course of action.
Upon the entire record herein, we find that the Petitioner is indirectly
affiliated with Local 910, within the meaning of Section 9 (b) (3) of
the Act, and accordingly that it may not at this time be certified as
the representative of the Employer's guards. We shall therefore
dismiss the petition.
Order
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for certification of represent-
atives herein be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
MEMBER HousTON took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Order.
'International Harvester Company, 81 NLRB 374 ; Westinghouse Electric Corporation
(Lima, Ohio, Plant ), 96 NLRB 1250.
BUILDERS EMPORIUM and WAREHOUSE, PROCESSING & DISTRIBUTION
WORKERS UNION, LOCAL 26, INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S &
WAREHOUSEMEN'S UNION, PETITIONER. Case No. 21-RC-2O09.
January 21, 1952
Decision and Order
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Jerome A. Reiner, hearing
97 NLRB No. 171.