The Magnavox Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 28, 1955

111 N.L.R.B. 379 (N.L.R.B. 1955)

THE MAGNAVOX COMPANY 379
Employer were limited to requests for a members-only contract.
However, we need not decide this question. For we are persuaded
on the basis of the current picketing that there is a present demand
for recognition in the unit found appropriate herein. In this con-
nection, the record shows that the Union has offered to remove the
pickets if the Employer will execute a contract with it. As the Union
normally represents all the classifications of employees found in the
plant, this indicates persuasively that the Union is seeking to compel
the Employer to bargain with it without regard to the question of
its majority status among these employees. We find, therefore, that
the picketing is not for the sole purpose of getting the employees to
join the Union as the more recent picket signs say, but is tantamount
to a present demand for recognition as majority representative of the
Employer's employees 3 Accordingly, we find that a question con-
cerning representation exists within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1)
and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act 4
4. The Employer requests a unit of all production employees, in-
cluding shipping department employees, with the statutory exclu-
sions. The Union takes no unit position. The production employees
are employed in the usual garment industry classifications such as
sewing machine operators, cutters, pressers, and finishers. Accord-
ingly, we find that all production employees at the Employer's plant
located at 1839 East 58th Place, Los Angeles, California, including
shipping department employees, but excluding guards and super-
visors 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,]
3 Pet roe's, An Operating Division of Red Robin Stores, Inc., 108 NLRB 1318 ; ef. Francis
Plating Co., 109 NLRB 35.
h Solvers Sportswear, 108 NLRB 588.
THE MAGNAVOX COMPANY and UNITED ELECTRICAL, RADIO AND MA-
CHINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, AND ITS LOCAL 910 and INTERNATIONAL
UNION OF ELECTRICAL, RADIO AND MACHINE WORKERS OF AMERICA,
CIO and UNITED AUTOMOBILE WORKERS, AFL. Case No. 13-RM
200. January 28,1955
Decision and Direction of Election
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National La-
bor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Albert Gore, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
111 NLRB No. 64.
380 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America, and
its Local 910; International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine
Workers of America, CIO.; and United Automobile Workers, AFL,
herein respectively referred to as UE, Local 910, IUE-CIO, and
UAW-AFL, are labor organizations claiming to represent certain
employees of the Employer.
The Regional Director ordered that evidence be taken in the course
of the representation hearing as to whether District Council 9 UE,
District Council 9 IUE-CIO, and Regional Council No. 8 UAW-
AFL, are labor organizations within the meaning of the Act,' and
were therefore required to comply with the filing requirements of
Section 9 (f), (g), and (h) of the Act. The Councils thereupon ap-
peared specially to contest the authority of the Regional Director to
investigate their status during the course of a proceeding in which
they are not seeking representation rights. If the councils are "labor
organizations," there is a serious question of whether they are or
should be required to comply with the requirements of Section 9 (f),
(g), and (h) of the Act, even though only local or international
unions are seeking representation rights, in order for the latter to be
deemed in full compliance. Accordingly, we find that the Regional
Director acted properly in directing an investigation into the status
of the councils.
The constitution of the UE provides for the division of the Union
into 12 districts, in each of which a council is established "to secure
mutual protection, harmonious action and close cooperation" among
the locals in the district in matters relating to the Union. The locals
in each district elect a general vice president of the International who,
ex officio, also serves as a member of the International executive board
and as chairman of the district council. The councils are chartered
by the International, and locals in the district are required to affiliate
with it. They have no individual members. The general vice pres-
ident represents the International executive board in disputes between
locals in his district and works in conjunction with the International's
organization department to assure proper coordination with the coun-
cils. The International's constitution assigns no role to the councils
in settling disputes as to the jurisdiction of locals, in calling strikes or
in making disbursements from the International's strike defense funds.
Nor is there any requirement that bargaining agreements entered into
by a local be submitted for approval or information to the councils.
1 These bodies will be referred to generally as intermediate labor bodies as they occupy
a position between the International Unions and the individual locals
THE MAGNAVOX COMPANY 381
The constitution of District Council 9 UE does not specify the
activities in which the council is expected to engage other than by
the statement that it is "to protect , maintain , and advance the interest
of workers , to organize local unions in shops and localities in con-
formity with its jurisdiction and promote the advancement of such
bodies."
The constitution of the IUE-CIO provides for 10 geographic dis-
tricts in each of which a council is established consisting of all the
locals in the district . The constitutional provisions relating to the
establishment , functions, and purposes of its district councils, and
the duties and status of its vice presidents are similar to those of the
UE. The constitution of District 9 IUE is also, with respect to the
matters considered here, similar to that of District Council 9 UE.
The constitution of the International UAW-AFL provides for 8
regions and for the establishment of a council in any region upon
the application of 2 or more locals. Locals are not required to
affiliate with a council . The latter are authorized to act in an advisory
capacity but may not affect the autonomy of the locals. The locals
of each region elect a member of the International executive board
who thereupon becomes the director in that region for the Inter-
national . He does not, however, serve as president of the regional
council. The constitution of Regional Council No. 8 UAW-AFL
parallels those of the other two councils in that its only reference to
the organization of employees occurs in the statement of the council's
general objectives.
As indicated by the minutes of council meetings, these organiza-
tions devote themselves almost exclusively to the educational and
legislative programs of their respective internationals , principally to
such matters as civil rights, fair labor practices , social legislation, and
farm labor relations . None of the councils serve as bargaining repre-
sentative of employees , none has ever conducted an organizing cam-
paign among workers, filed a representation petition or a charge with
the Board , conducted bargaining or grievance negotiations with em-
ployers, or called or ratified strikes.
Although the constitutions of the councils make some reference to
organizing activities , it is clear , in the context of the sections in which
they appear , that the reference is to the general objective of unions
in protecting , maintaining, and advancing the interests of workers.
The specific function of organizing employees is entrusted to Inter-
national representatives.
The councils derive funds for their operations from the payment
of per capita taxes by the locals in their area. As for the UE and
IUE councils, payments are made directly to them and are deposited
in their own bank accounts . From their general funds the councils
pay office rent, administrative expenses , and the salary of the Inter-
382 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
national vice president for their respective districts. Regional Coun-
cil No. 8 UAW-AFL obtains the bulk of its funds from the Inter-
national on the basis of per capita taxes paid by the locals in that
region directly to the International. The salary of the International's
top representative in the region is fixed by the International as part
of the region's budget.
In all three of the councils, therefore, the per capita taxes paid by
the locals are used for the salaries of the International's top officials
assigned to that area. We are satisfied that the financial arrange-
ments were devised as a means whereby the locals of a particular
region bear the expenses of the International which accrue from its
activities in that region, and not as a method of control to be exercised
by the councils over the International's officers.
The fact that the International vice presidents of UE and IUE are
also chairmen of the councils does not necessarily establish that the
two spheres of activities have merged into one. As chairman of the
councils, they are in charge of political and educational programs,
while as vice presidents of the International they are responsible to
it for the organization and representation of employees. It is in this
respect that the councils in this case are distinguished from the dis-
tricts and councils of the International Fur and Leather Workers
Union which the Board has found to be statutory labor organiza-
tions z The constitution of the International Fur and Leather
Workers Union authorizes each of its chartered organizations to
undertake those activities which are included within the statutory
definition of "labor organization." In contrast, the councils of the
UE, IUE-CIO, and UAW-AFL, also chartered by the International
Unions, are given no similar authority and do not , as a matter of
fact, engage in those activities.
We find that District Council 9 UE, District Council 9 IUE-CIO,
and Regional Council No. 8 UAW-AFL are not labor organizations
within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. They are therefore
not required to comply with the filing requirements of Section 9 (f),
(g), and (h) of the Act,3 in order for the local and international
unions here involved to be deemed in full compliance.
3. The UE and its Local 910, the present bargaining representa-
tives, contend that their collective-bargaining contract with the Em-
ployer, which is effective until June 1, 19557 is a bar to this proceeding.
The Employer, the IUE-CIO, and the UAW-AFL, all contend that
2 United Tanners, Inc., 103 NLRB 760; Franklin Tanning Company, 104 NLRB 192;
Safrit Lumber Company, Inc., 108 NLRB 550; Chicago Rawhide Manufacturing Company,
109 NLRB 589.
3 District 9 UE, District 9 IUE-CIO, and Region No. 8 UAW-AFL are merely geographic
divisions of their International Unions, and are not themselves " labor organizations."
Osbrink Manufacturing Co., 106 NLRB 16, enfd. 218 F. 2d 341 (C. A. 9) ; Grand Central
Aircraft Co., Inc, 106 NLRB 358, enfd. 216 F 2d 572 (C. A. 9).
THE MAGNAVOX COMPANY 383
the contract is not a bar for the reason , among others , that a schism
exists within the contracting labor organization.
In January 1954, the Employer was advised by an agency of the
Defense Department that it had revoked the security clearances of
two of its employees , Ives and Williams, president and shop chair-
man, respectively, of Local 910.
In their capacity as officials of the Local , Ives and Williams had
been permitted to carry out their functions throughout the entire
plant, including the restricted area. Revocation of their security
clearances meant that they would thereafter be excluded from 75 per-
cent of the plant 's working area. The two officials thereupon resigned
from their union offices on February 4,1954.
A few days later , a few employees submitted a petition in proper
form requesting the acting president of the Local to call a special
meeting for the purpose of disaffiliation . The petition was rejected
as being beyond the scope of the president 's authority . Those active
in the move to disaffiliate from the UE thereupon formed a committee
for that purpose. Handbills were distributed , and at the next regular
meeting on February 18, attempts were made to get a vote on disaffilia-
tion, but all motions to that effect were declared out of order . Appar-
ently as a compromise measure, a motion was carried to hold a special
meeting at which disaffiliation would be discussed but at which no vote
would be taken. This meeting was held on March 11 and was an-
nounced in the normal fashion, through the Employer 's public
address system . Attendance was greater than average. Attempts to
get a vote on disaffiliation at the meeting were ruled out of order by
the president of the Local and during the resulting turmoil , a leader
in the move for disaffiliation announced that all those who wanted to
vote on the issue should follow him. Most of those at the UE meeting
thereupon left and moved across the street to another meeting hall.
A motion for disaffiliation from the UE was made at the new meeting
and was passed unanimously . Representatives of the IUE-CIO
thereupon spoke, offering the employees aid in their attempt to set up
a rival organization . The next day , a self-appointed committee of 12
employees decided to affiliate with the IUE-CIO ; other employees
about the same time proceeded to organize a group which joined the
UAW-AFL.
Local 910 has continued as a functioning organization, holding
meetings, negotiating with the Employer , and generally administer-
ing the contract . The UE contends that there is no reason not to in-
voke the Board's contract-bar doctrine , because Local 910 is not
defunct, and no confusion exists as to the identity of the bargaining
agent. It stresses the alleged failure of the dissident elements in Local
910 to satisfy the formalities which the Board has found are necessary
to prove a schism in a bargaining representative.
384 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
In the A. C. Lawrence Leather Company case,' the Board said "that
expulsion of a labor union by its parent organization coupled with dis-
affiliation action at the local level for reasons relating to the expulsion,
disrupts any -established bargaining relationship between an em-
ployer and that union and creates such confusion that the existing
contract with such union no longer stabilizes industrial relations be-
tween the employer and its employees." The issue of communism in
the UE was exhaustively discussed in at least two of the meetings of
Local 910 between the revocation of Ives' and Williams' security clear-
ances and the disaffiliation action. The testimony of employees indi-
cates that it was the common opinion of many at the plant that the
revocations were due to the association of Ives and Williams with offi-
cers of the UE. The interest and awareness of this issue on the part
of employees at the plant is further evidenced by the handbills which
were distributed to them making extensive reference to the issue of
communism in the UE. Lastly, the resolution of disaffiliation which
was unanimously adopted specifically relates the disaffiliation to the
fact that the UE officers had "repeatedly refused to deny their con-
nections with, and adherence to, the Communist Party."'
We are satisfied that the disaffiliation movement within Local 910
was for reasons related to the expulsion of the UE from the CIO and
has resulted in such confusion that the existing contract between the
UE, its Local 910 and the Employer, no longer stabilizes industrial
relations between the parties. We therefore find that the contract no
longer constitutes a bar to this proceeding."
We find that a question affecting commerce exists concerning the
representation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of
Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. In accord with an agreement of the parties, we find that the fol-
lowing 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 hourly rated employees in the production, maintenance, testing
equipment, and condenser engineering departments, excluding office
help, laboratory technicians, guards, foremen, and other supervisors
as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
4 108 NLRB 546 . Followed in International Harvester Company, East Moline Works,
108 NLRB 600 , and Empire Zinc Division, The New Jersey Zinc Company, 108 NLRB 1663.
.6 See cases cited in footnote 4 for the facts relating to the expulsion of the UE from
the CIO.
6 Member Rodgers concurs in the Direction of Election herein, but finds it unnecessary
to decide whether there has been a schism. Instead , he would refuse to recognize the
Contract of the UE as a bar for reasons of broad public policy. The UE was expelled.
from the Congress of Industrial Organizations because of Communist domination. Under
these circumstances the availability of the Board's processes to the UE would not, in
Member Rodgeis' opinion, effectuate the policies of the Act not properly serve the interests
of national security.