Tiffany Label Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 25, 1956

115 N.L.R.B. 1724 (N.L.R.B. 1956)

1724 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Payne testified that with company permission he is engaged in construction work
and frequently leaves the plant for that reason; and that he has many times passed
the Alamo Plaza Courts on business, several times to see a roofing and repair man
whose place of business is directly across the highway from the motel. He also
testified concerning one occasion. when, in search of the roofer, he was directed
down the lane on which the meeting room faced. (This may have been the second
occasion concerning which Madden testified.) While he had heard talk in the
plant concerning The Union, and rumors of who attended meetings, he did not actu-
ally know who attended the meetings or whether meetings were in progress when
he passed the meeting place.
As noted, no attempt was made to "hide" the meetings from the Company, this
being testified to by witnesses called by the General Counsel. Company witnesses
testified similarly that meetings were discussed within the hearing of supervisors.
(Ward could name only 2 employees whom he had heard discussing union meetings;
Kirk named 3 others.) Under such circumstances, the "appearance of surveillance"
would not intimidate or interfere with employees. But whether or not there was
unlawful interference can be determined on a broader basis. There is no question
of lack of company knowledge of union meetings, or any basis for finding that the
Company sought information concerning such activities at the time of the alleged
surveillance incidents. When we Ladd to this Payne's reasonable explanation of his
presence in the vicinity, neither contradicted nor questioned, it must be found that
the allegation of surveillance has not been sustained.
In addition to the incidents referred to in the General Counsel's brief, several
instances of apparently claimed interference were mentioned by witnesses. I have
noted some of them, supra, but it is not possible in some cases to correlate the
date given with that alleged. With respect to still other incidents noted in the
testimony (this includes matters covered by several exhibits in evidence), I have
weighed such testimony and find that it does not indicate violations. In any case,
since apparently not alleged and not relied on, such latter incidents and testimony
need not be analyzed here. I have not overlooked but find it unnecessary to con-
sider the General Counsel's reference to Personnel Director Hasty, since that matter
was striken by amendment to the complaint and was not litigated.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the
case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Company is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
2. Textile Workers Union of America, CIO, is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
3. The Company has not engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.)
'Tiffany Label Company and Arthur L. Morgan, Petitioner. Case
No. 18-RC-2692. June 25, 1956
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
On February 28, 1956, the Board issued its Decision and Order
;herein,' finding, inter alia, that there was no evidence that Local 548,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen
and Helpers of America, AFL-CIO, the Intervenor in this proceed-
ing, was defunct. The Board therefore concluded that the Inter-
venor's current contract, effective to June 1, 1958, and covering em-
ployees involved herein, was a bar to this proceeding and dismissed
,the petition.
Not reported In printed volumes of Board Decisions and Orders.
115 NLILB No. 269.
TIFFANY LABEL COMPANY 1725
On March 5, 1956, the Petitioner filed a petition for reconsideration
of the Board's Decision and Order, alleging that the Intervenor was
defunct and, in effect, that the contract was therefore no bar. On
March 20 the Intervenor filed opposition to the motion with an at-
tached affidavit of the Intervenor's trustee. On April 2, the Board,
having duly considered the matter, issued an order in which it re-
scinded its Decision and Order of February 28, 1956, reinstated the
petition, and ordered that the record be reopened and a further hear-
ing held, to adduce further evidence with respect to the present status
of the Intervenor, including the question of whether it was still a
functioning labor organization. On April 16, 1956, further hearing
was held before Lyle C. Howg, hearing officer.2 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 National Labor Relations Act.
2. The Petitioner claims to represent certain employees of the
Employer.
3. The Employer is engaged at its Minneapolis, Minnesota , plant iii
the production of glass advertising specialties and the ceramic deco-
rating of glass containers.
Since November 16, 1953, the Employer and the Intervenor have
had a contract, covering employees involved herein. The last supple-
ment, executed July 25, 1955, provided, among other things, that the
contract was to run from June 1, 1955, to June 1, 1958a
On August 18, 1955, the Intervenor was placed in trusteeship by its
International , and the president of the International appointed its vice
president the trustee in charge of the Intervenor. The trustee there-
upon discharged one Gerald P. Connelly, the Intervenor' s business
representative , from his position and appointed the Petitioner his
successor. On October 18, however, one Roy Williams of Kansas
City, Missouri, was appointed the new trustee of the Intervenor, and
he immediately reinstated Connelly in his former position. On No-
vember 17, 1955, the Employer's employees voted in Case No. 18-
UD-6 to rescind the Intervenor's authority to make a union-shop
contract with the Employer. About December 26, all the officers of
the Intervenor received letters from Williams removing them from
0 Although notice of further hearing was served on the wife of the Intervenor's trustee
by certified mail sent to a Shawnee , Kansas , address, the Intervenor did not appear at
this hearing . Such notice was also sent by certified mail to the Intervenor 's last known
address in Minneapolis , Minnesota , but was returned by the post office with the notation
"Moved, no address."
s This is the contract which the Intervenor asserted as a bar at the original hearing.
The Employer took no definite position on the question of contract bar at either hearing
but expressed its willingness at the later bearing to abide by the Board's decision.
1726 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
their offices, and apparently no new officers have been elected since
that time.
On or about February 11, 1956, there was a bombing in Minneapolis,
and subsequently, in connection therewith, an indictment was returned
against Connelly in a Minnesota court. It appears that Connelly re-
signed from his position with the Intervenor about February 15 or
16, and that on or about February 23, a Minnesota court issued an order
in a civil action, restraining Connelly from acting for the Intervenor
or its members in any capacity' During this period, the Intervenor's
offices in the Teamsters Building were raided by members of the Min-
neapolis Police Department, and its books and records seized and
turned over to the assistant county attorney of Hennepin County.
'On April 13, 3 days before the further hearing, the Petitioner tele-
phoned the Teamsters Building and was told by the switchboard
operator that, so far as she knew, the Intervenor "no longer existed"
and that all the mail that came into the building had been returned to
the senders. On the day of the hearing, the Petitioner's attorney
called the Teamsters Building and was told that the Intervenor's
trustee "has not been here, nobody knows him," and that the Inter-
venor had no representatives in the building.
The Intervenor has not communicated with the Employer with re-
spect to the adjustment of grievances, although such have existed,
since April 1954. In fact, at the further hearing, the Employer's
vice president and superintendent testified, without contradiction, that
the Employer had seen "no real evidence" that the Intervenor existed
since about the time of the UD election, held, as noted, on November
17, 1955. After the election, the Employer stopped deducting union
dues from the wages of its employees, and they do not appear to have
paid any dues to the Intervenor since that time. Furthermore, the
Intervenor does not appear to have held any meeting since at least
October 18, 1955, when Williams, the new trustee, reinstated Connelly
in his former office.
As a result of elections held by the Board in other cases 5 in March
of this year, the Petitioner in the instant case has been certified as
the bargaining representative of all the employees formerly repre-
sented by the Intervenor except the employees of the Employer and
of employers engaged in the liquor business in the city of Minneapolis.
In our opinion, the record herein, including the fact that the Peti-
• The Petitioner 's attorney placed the summons and complaint in this action in the
hands of process servers on or about August 18, 1955, for service on Connelly and
Williams. However, up to the time of the further hearing, they had been unable to
serve Williams.
5 Phil Malat Company, Case No. 18-RC-2671 ; Pophitt Cereal Company , Case No.
18-RC-2673 ; Mountain Foods, Inc , Case No. 18-RC-2674; and Minnewota Barrel and
Drum Association, Case No. 18-RC-2691 ( not reported in printed volumes of Board
Decisions and Orders).
M & W MILK TRANSPORTATION CO. 1727
tioner submitted 100 percent showing of interest among the employees
in the unit hereinafter found appropriate, now discloses that the
Intervenor is no longer a functioning labor organization capable of
administering its contract with the Employer. Accordingly, we con-
clude that the current contract does not bar a representation election at
this time.'
We therefore find that a question affecting commerce exists concern-
ing the representation of employees of the Employer within the mean-
ing of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The following employees of the Employer constitute an appro-
priate unit for the purposes of collective bargaining within the mean-
ing of Section 9 (b) of the Act :
All production and maintenance employees of the Employer 's glass
specialties plant at Minneapolis, Minnesota, excluding office clerical
employees , professional employees , guards , and all supervisors as de-
fined in the Act'
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
E Cf. Standard Brass Manufacturing Company, 101 NLRB 1032.
7 There was no dispute as to the appropriate unit at either hearing.
-M & W Milk Transportation Co.' and Milk Wagon Drivers and
Dairy Workers Local 602, International, Brotherhood of Team-
sters, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 2-RC-7964. June 26,1956
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 Max Schwartz , 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 fords :
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 .2
' The Employer 's name appears as amended at the hearing.
2 Dairy Transportation Drivers, Helpers and Terminal Employees , Local 770 , Inter-
national Brotherhood of Teamsters , AFL-CIO, herein called Local 770, was permitted to
intervene on the basis of its claim of successorship to Local 445, International Brotherhood
of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, AFL-CIO, herein called
Local 445, the past bargaining representative of the Employer's employees involved in the
instant proceeding . A motion was made by Theodore G. Daley and others to intervene
for Local 445 on the basis of their claim to be the elected officials of that local. The
hearing officer granted the motion over the opposition of Local 770. For the reasons dis-
cussed in paragraph numbered 5 below, we find that the intervention was properly granted.
115 NLRB No. 268.