Thomas L. Green & Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 25, 1953

103 N.L.R.B. 1023 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

THOMAS L. GREEN & COMPANY, INC. 1023
THOMAS L. GREEN & COMPANY, INC.' and BAKERY MACHINERY WORK-
ERS, INC., PETITIONER and UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO.
Case No. 35-RU-833. March 05, 1953
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 Harry Berns, hearing officer.
The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from preju-
dicial error and are hereby affirmed.
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 Styles and
Peterson].
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 Intervenor refused to stipulate that the Petitioner is a labor
organization within the meaning of the Act. The Petitioner was
organized on October 7, 1952, at a meeting of the Employer's em-
ployees. Its constitution states that its purpose is to organize and
bargain collectively for its members. As the Petitioner exists for the
purpose of dealing with employers concerning terms and conditions
of employment, we find that it is a labor organization within the
meaning of the Act.
3. The Intervenor contends that the current contract, which does
not terminate until August 31, 1953, is a bar to the petition. The
Employer and Petitioner contend that the contract is not a bar because
it was executed by Local No. 1882 of the Intervenor which is now
defunct. The Intervenor denies that its Local is defunct and con-
tends, moreover, that it is a party to the contract.
The current contract was executed by officers of Local No. 1882 on
June 18, 1951. The Intervenor appears to base its claim that it is a
party to the contract on the asserted ground that the Local, in effect,
signed the contract as agent for the Intervenor. However, no evi-
dence of such agency appears in the record or in the contract itself.
On the contrary, the record shows that, while the name of the Inter-
national and places for the signature of its officers, as well as the Local's
dicers, appear on a contract form presented to the Employer in August
1949, but not finally executed, the later contracts actually executed
by the Employer on December 30, 1949, and June 18, 1951, do not bear
the name of the International or its officers, but only of the Local and
1 The Employer's name appears as corrected at the hearing.
103 NLRB No. 104.
1024 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
its officers 2 Accordingly, we find that the Intervenor is not, in fact,
a party to the current contract, but that the Local and the Employer
are the only parties.
We find further that Local No. 1882 is defunct, in view of the follow-
ing circumstances :
In 1944 the Intervenor was certified as bargaining representative
of the Employer's production and maintenance employees by the
Board, and shortly thereafter organized Local No. 1882 for the sole
purpose of representing these employees. The latest contract between
the Employer and Local No. 1882 was executed, as already stated, on
June 18,1951. Thereafter, no action was taken by the Local to enforce
the contract or to process grievances. During the first months of
1952, the officers called a few meetings of the Local, but no members
appeared. After January 1952, only the officers paid dues to the
Local, and after June, no dues at all were collected. In turn, the
Local stopped paying dues to the Intervenor about April 1952. Al-
though the Local's charter has not been revoked, it was informed by
the Intervenor in July 1952 that it was "unconstitutional." In
August the treasury of the Local was distributed among the few
remaining members. The Employer, on its own initiative, gave a
wage increase to its employees during 1952.
Twenty of the twenty-nine employees in the unit held a meeting on
October 7, 1952, and voted unanimously to organize the Petitioner
and to disaffiliate from the Intervenor. The officers of Local No.
1882 3 were elected officers of the Petitioner, except for the recording
secretary. The Petitioner received a corporation charter from the
State of Indiana on November 3, 1952. Another meeting, attended
by virtually all the employees in the unit, was held on November 5,
1952, at which the Petitioner's constitution and bylaws were unani-
mously adopted. On November 8, 1952, the Petitioner requested
recognition from the Employer as representative of its employees,
but the Employer declined to recognize the Petitioner until certified
by the Board. At the time of the hearing, 22 of the 24 employees
in the unit were members of the Petitioner.
As we have found that Local No. 1882 is defunct, we find that the
1951 contract is not a bar to the present proceeding, and that a ques-
tion affecting commerce exists concerning the representation of em-
T The record shows that the International 's officers refused to execute the August 1949
contract because of alleged illegal provisions therein. Thereafter , no representative of
the International participated in negotiations with the Employer , which were conducted
by the officers of the Local alone. The December 1949 and June 1951 contracts incorpo-
rated by reference the provisions of the abortive August 1949 contract and purported to
be merely amendments thereof, reciting the "execution" of the August 1949 contract by
the Employer and the Intervenor.
2 The officers of Local No. 1882 were elected in June 1950, for 2-year terms. ,However,
no election of new officers was held in June 1952.
BOEING AIRPLANE COMPANY. 1025
ployees of the Employer, within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1)
and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The following employees of the Employer constitute a unit appro-
priate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning
of Section 9 (b) of the Act :
All production and maintenance employees of the Employer,
including stock handlers, but excluding outside erectors, office clerical
and plant clerical employees, draftsmen, guards, professional em-
ployees, the chief engineer, foremen, and all other supervisors as
defined in the Act'
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
4 The unit conforms , to the stipulation of the parties.
BOEING AIRPLANE COMPANY and AERONAUTICAL INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT
LODGE No. 751, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS and
E. A. SPRINGER and RUDOLPH A. KARTESS and AERONAUTICAL
INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT LODGE No. 751, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
MACHINISTS and EDWIN A. SANBORN and HOWARD J. BLOOMER and
MANNING I. HIRSCH and CHRISTINA M. NIELSEN and FRANK F.
PASSLER. Cases Nos. 19-CA-135, 19-CA-136,19-CA-171,19-CA-
175,19-CA-176, 1,,9-CA-177,19-CA-178,19-CA-354, and 19-CA-
413. March 26, 1953
Decision and Order
On January 3, 1952, Trial Examiner Wallace E. Royster issued
his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceedings, finding
that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain
unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist
therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in a copy
of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. The Trial Examiner
also found that the Respondent had not engaged in certain other al-
leged unfair labor practices, and recommended that the complaint be
dismissed with respect thereto. Thereafter, the Respondent and the
General Counsel filed timely exceptions to the Intermediate Report
and supporting briefs.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with these cases to a three-
member panel [Members Murdock, Styles, and Peterson].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and
finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are here-
103 NLRB No. 115.