The Oak Hill Firebrick Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 23, 1951

94 N.L.R.B. 1 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

THE OAK HILL FIREBRICK COMPANY' and UNITED STONE AND ALLIED
PRODUCTS WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER. Case No.
9-RC-1083. April 23,1951
Decision and Direction of Election
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Lloyd R. Fraker, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.2
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 [Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and
Reynolds].
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 certain
employees of the Employer.
3. The question concerning representation :
The Employer and the Intervenor contend that a contract in effect
between them covering the employees involved in this petition is a
bar to this proceeding. This contract was executed on October 27,
1949, for a term of 1 year, with a provision for yearly automatic
renewal in the absence of 60 days' notice to modify or terminate. The
Intervenor gave such notice by a letter written on August 26, 1950,
but not received by the Employer until August 28. No formal bar-
gaining negotiations followed, and no new contract was executed,
although on January 25, 1951, a committee purporting to represent
the Intervenor entered into a written agreement with the Employer
for a new wage scale. An issue was raised at the hearing as to
whether the Intervenor's notice was timely and thus forst°alled auto-
matic renewal of the contract. In view of our finding that the con-
tract is no bar for reasons set forth hereinafter, we find it unnecessary
The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing.
2 At the hearing the Oak Hill Firebrick Local, independent, the Intervenor, moved to
dismiss the petition on the ground that an existing collective bargaining contract between
it and the Ejnployer, is a bar to this proceeding . The hearing officer referred this motion
to the Board ' J or reasons given in paragraph number 3 , this motion is denied0
94 NLRB No. 3.
1
953811
1
-52-vol 9-2
2 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to interpret the contract's provisions to determine whether or not such
notice was timely given.
On November 16, 1950, at a special meeting called by the president
of the Intervenor, pursuant to notice duly posted, the members
unanimously voted to disband the Intervenor and to affiliate with
the Petitioner.3 A charter was applied for and granted on November
18, 1950. The Employer was notified of this action of the Local.
Thereafter, in January 1951, a group of employees reorganized the
Intervenor, and elected a new president. This group now claims that
the election of the former president at a meeting on October 25, 1950,
was not legal, and that the action of the special meeting held on
November 16, pursuant to the call of the president thus elected, was
therefore void 4 The Intervenor asserts, moreover, that it has the
majority of the employees among its membership.5
The record discloses that since the action of the November 16
meeting there have been no normal bargaining relations between the
Employer and either of the contesting groups 6 It is clear that a con-
fusion exists among the Employer's employees as to the identity of
their bargaining representative such as can best be resolved in an
election conducted by the Board.' We find that the contract between
the Employer and the Intervenor is not a bar to the instant proceeding.
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. The following employees 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 Oak
Hill, Ohio, plant, excluding office, clerical, and professional employees,
guards, and all supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
7 Out of a membership of about 68, only 13 members were present at this special meeting
The bylaws provided that a "quorum for a business meeting shall be 50 percent of the
membership " However, all the witnesses who-testified on this subject agreed that this
provision was never followed and that the attendance at the special meeting was about
the average attendance of all meetings held by the Local.
4 The former president had been selected by the flip of a coin following a tie in the
balloting for this office at the meeting on October 25, 1950. We believe it unnecessary
to determine the issue of conflicting organizational claims thus arising, for we regard
it as no more than a further indication of the confusion that has arisen as to representation.
E Both groups have, however, introduced evidence tending to show that each represents
a majority of the membership.
The checked-off dues of the members are held by the Employer in escrow. No grievances
have been processed by either group. j a
I Boston Machine Works Company, 89 NLRB 59 ; New York Shipbuilding Corporation,
89 NLRB 915. Cf, however, Columbia River Salmon and Tuna Packers Association, et al.,
91 NLRB 1424, and Telex, Inc, 90 NLRB 202
All parties have agreed to the description of the unit as given. o
t