The Roberts Brass Manufacturing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 12, 1955

114 N.L.R.B. 49 (N.L.R.B. 1955)

THE ROBERTS BRASS MANUFACTURING COMPANY 49
The Roberts Brass Manufacturing Company 1 and International
Union of Electrical , Radio & Machine Workers, CIO , Petitioner.
Case No. 35-RC-1157. September 12, 1955
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before John W. Hines, hearing of-
ficer. 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 organizations involved claim 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 rea-
sons:
The Employer and Roberts Brass Workers Alliance, Incorporated,
an incorporated labor organization, herein called the Intervenor, as-
sert that a collective-bargaining agreement signed by them on August
9, 1954, and effective to July 1, 1956, is a bar to this proceeding. The
Petitioner contends that the contract is not a bar because of a schism
within, and the legal dissolution and defunctness of, the Intervenor.
The pertinent facts are as follows :
In March 1955 Robert Abel and William Terrell, then president
and vice president, respectively, of the Intervenor, headed a group
of employees who were dissatisfied with the Intervenor and desired
representation by the CIO. Terrell communicated with representa-
tives of the Petitioner for the purpose of learning what procedure
would have to be followed for dissolution of the Intervenor and affilia-
tion with the Petitioner. After several conferences with officers of
the Intervenor, Charles Snodgrass, international representative of the
Petitioner, prepared a resolution dissolving the Intervenor and affiliat-
ing with the CIO, and delivered this resolution together with CIO af-
filiation cards to the dissident officers on April 4.
On the same day, at a regularly called meeting of the Intervenor 2
attended by 43 employees in the contract unit, approximately one-half
of the total membership, the resolution was read to the membership
and a vote was taken to disband the Intervenor and affiliate with the
Petitioner. The vote was 42 to 1 in favor of the resolution. As soon
as the vote was taken, the Petitioner's representatives, Snodgrass and
1 The Employer 's name appears as amended at the hearing.
2 A posted announcement of the meeting did not state that one of its purposes was to
vote on a change of affiliation
114 NLRB No. 18.
50 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Henderson, were summoned to the meeting hall and virtually assumed
control of the proceedings. They addressed the meeting, spoke in favor
of the CIO, and distributed the Petitioner's membership cards among
the employees present. At the close of the meeting, Snodgrass made
various changes in the minutes of the meeting as originally recorded
by the secretary of the Intervenor.
After the April 4 meeting, Snodgrass personally made several trips
and telephone calls to the office of the secretary of state of Indiana
concerning the dissolution of the Intervenor. Thereafter; he further
advised the officers of the Intervenor concerning the details of the dis-
solution and informed them that, under the corporation law of Indiana,
it would be necessary to hold another meeting and give 10 days' notice
of the dissolution action. A meeting for this purpose was set for,
April 28,1955.3
At the April 28 meeting Snodgrass and Henderson were present
throughout the proceedings and made speeches urging the dissolution
of the Intervenor and affiliation with the Petitioner. After these
speeches a vote was taken on a resolution of dissolution, also prepared
by Snodgrass, and it passed by a vote of 47 to 12. The following day
the Petitioner notified the Employer that it represented a majority of
the employees in the contract unit. On May 6, 1955, the Petitioner
filed the instant petition. The Employer declined to recognize the
Petitioner in view of its contract with the Intervenor.
Thereafter, about six employees in the contract unit arranged and
publicized a meeting of all "loyal" members of the Intervenor to be.
held on May 16 for the purpose of electing new officers and keeping
their union functioning. Shortly after this meeting started, the Peti-
tioner's representatives arrived at the meeting hall in the company of
the defecting officers of the Intervenor. There were about 40 employees
present and Curtis Applegate served as chairman - of the meeting.
Without any introduction, Snodgrass took charge of the meeting and
asked those members of the Intervenor who had called the meeting to
stand up. When they did so, they were asked to leave the meeting.
Thereupon, about 12 to 20 employees left the meeting and no further
attempt at that time was made to elect new officers.4
On May 24,1955, a grievance concerning an employee in the contract
unit was filed and signed by President Abel of the Intervenor, and on
8 On April 19, Snodgrass met with officers of the Intervenor in a grocery store near the
plant. The persons present decided formally to dissolve the Intervenor 's organization in
.compliance with the State law A resolution prepared by Snodgrass was presented to the
officers for their signatures . He also gave the officers the notice of the special meeting
to be called on April 28
4 Following the April 28 meeting, the dissident officers of the Intervenor proceeded to
dissolve the Intervenor by refunding all monies to the members and filing a certificate of
,dissolution with the secretary of state On May 25, these officers, with the assistance of
the Petitioner's representative , allegedly achieved dissolution of the Intervenor and, on
May 27 notified the Employer of the action , requesting that no further checkoff of dues
should be made in the name of the organization.
THE ROBERTS BRASS MANUFACTURING COMPANY 51
May 26 this grievance was discussed at a meeting with the Employer
attended by all officers of the Intervenor. The terms of the grievance
settlement were signed by the Intervenor's president and initialed by
the Employer's personnel director a few days before the hearing.
At the time of the hearing on June 1, 1955, 75 employees within the
bargaining unit had dues checkoff cards on file with the Employer.
Although such cards are revocable by the individual employees, at no
time since April 1 has the Employer received any revocation notices
from employees in the contract -unit, and the Employer continues to
deduct such dues in behalf of the Intervenor.
So far as the present status of the Intervenor is concerned, it appears
that, although the Intervenor was rendered temporarily ineffective
following the vote to disband on April 28, it has retained or regained
many of its old members and is continuing to administer the current
contract with the Employer by whom-it is still recognized as the bar-
gaining representative of the employees in the contract unit.' We find,
therefore, that the Intervenor is still a functioning organization.6
in certain cases the Board has found that when employees covered
by a contract vote to disaffiliate from the contracting union, that action
in the context of an intraunion split of serious proportions creates a
schism which causes confusion in the bargaining relationship between
the employer and the representative of his employees, so that the con-
tract no longer serves to promote industrial stability and thus should
not bar an immediate election. However, it is well established that the
Board will not permit the "schism" doctrine to be used to facilitate
raiding by a rival union? Nor will it accord any validity to a formal-
ized disaffiliation proceeding when the meetings of the contracting
union are controlled by a rival labor organization. Apart from other
considerations, the evidence is clear that the meetings of April 4 and
28, upon which the claim of schism is founded were completely domi-
nated by the Petitioner, and that the Petitioner's representatives were
actually the moving force behind the purported schismatic movement.
5 After the close of the hearing, the Intervenor filed a request for a further hearing for
the purpose of proving that since the original hearing , 28 employees had met and elected
new officers of the Intervenor who have negotiated wage changes with the Employer pur-
suant to a wage reopening provision in the current contract , and that during the last
days of June , 53 of its members had paid current dues. Although the Petitioner opposes
the motion for reopening it does not specifically challenge the truth of the allegations set
forth by the Intervenor. In view of our determination below , the request for a further
hearing is denied
9 The Petitioner also contends that the Intervenor has been legally dissolved as a labor
organization in accordance with the corporation law of the State of Indiana , and there-
fore that the contract should not be held a bar . We find no merit in this contention. The
Board is not concerned with the legality of the corporate dissolution action. It suffices
for the purpose of this proceeding that the Intervenor remains a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act and that it is actually functioning in that ca-
pacity. Cf. Aleo Manu facturing Company, 109 NLRB 1297 , 1303; New York Shipbuild-
ing Corporation, 89 NLRB 915, 916.
4 The Weatherhead Company, 108 NLRB 717, 720.
387644-56-vol. 114-5
52 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Thus, as the Petitioner actively assisted and directed the dissident em-
ployees of the Intervenor in their effort to affiliate with the rival union,
we are convinced and find that the April 4 and 28 meetings do not
warrant the application of the Board's schism doctrine.'
In view of the foregoing, we find that the 1954 contract between the
Employer and the Intervenor is a bar to an election at the present time.
Accordingly, we shall- dismiss the petition.
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
"Barton Distilling Company, 106 NLRB 361, 364 ; Bendix Products Division , 98 NLRB
1180, 1182.
The Belden Brick Company and Robert W. Householder,' Peti-
tioner and United Brick and Clay Workers of America, Local
809, A. F. L . Case No. 9-RD-1445. September 12, 1955
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a decertification petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the
National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Orville E.
Andrews, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the
hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
The Union contends that the petition herein should be-dismissed on
the ground that the Employer allegedly instigated the filing of the
petition. The record shows that : During a strike called by the Union
at the Employer's Somerset, Ohio, plant, the only one involved herein,
the employees, including the Petitioner, voted to return to work; the
next day, when the employees sought to enter the plant, they found a
picket line had been established by the Union with employees from
other plants of the Employer; the Somerset employees did not attempt
to cross the picket line; Metzgar, the Employer's superintendent at
Somerset, thereupon, advised the Petitioner that one way the em-
ployees could get back to work would be to decertify the Union and
that this would necessitate a trip to Cincinnati, Ohio; Petitioner re-
'tained local counsel, who aided him in preparing the instant petition;
Petitioner borrowed 20 dollars from Metzgar, which was later repaid,
to defray the expense of a trip to the Board's Regional Office in Cin-
cinnati to file the instant petition, but did not disclose to Metzgar the
purpose of the loan; and Metzgar frequently made loans to employees.
While it appears from the foregoing that the Employer, through
Metzgar, suggested to the Petitioner the filing of a decertification
petition, we find that the Petitioner and the other employees adopted
this suggestion solely because they thought it would prevent the Union
1 The Petitioner 's name appears as amended at the hearing.
114 NLRB No. 13.