United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 7, 1955

114 N.L.R.B. 1300 (N.L.R.B. 1955)

1300 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Without determining whether or not the Employer had the knowl-
edge attributed to it by the Union, we are of the opinion that the
representations made by the Employer fall within the scope -of cam-
paign propaganda and are not so misleading as to justify the Board
in setting aside the election 7 The Board has held that it will not
undertake to police or censor ordinary campaign representations, but
leaves to the good sense of the voters the appraisal of such matters, and
to opposing parties the task of correcting inaccurate and untruthful
statements.8 Moreover, the Union, having been a party to the con-
tract in question, was in a position to correct the alleged misrepresen-
tations made by the Employer by attempting to call attention to the'
exact terms of the contract. There is no showing here that the Union
made any such attempt. As the Employer's statements were, there-
fore, neither made nor reaffirmed in the face of specific contradic-
tion by the Union, such statements are not entitled to unusual weight
over and above that to be accorded ordinary campaign propaganda .9
Accordingly, under all the circumstances, we are of the opinion that
the Employer's misrepresentations, even if wilful, were not such as
to influence employees improperly or to prevent their exercise of a free
choice in the election.
In view of the foregoing, and as the Petitioner failed to receive a
majority of the valid ballots cast, we shall certify the results of the
election.
[The Board certified that a majority of the valid ballots was not
cast for District 126, International Association of Machinists, AF 4
and that this Union is not the exclusive representative of the em-
ployees at the Dallas, Texas, plant of Verson Manufacturing Co.,
in the unit heretofore found appropriate.]
MEMBERS MURDOCK and BEAN took no part in the consideration of
the above Decision and Certification of Results of Election.
7 Horder's, Incorporated, 114 NLRB 751; Comfort Slipper Corporation, 112 NLRB
183; Gong BeZZ Manufacturing Co., 114 NLRB 342. See also, Merck A Company, Inc.,
104 NLRB 891.
Stewart-Warner Corporation, 102 NLRB 1153, 11.58.
See Horder's, Incorporated, supra.
Local 1139, United Electrical , Radio and Machine Workers of
America, Ind. and International Union of Electrical, Radio
and Machine Workers of America , CIO. Case No. 18-CB-73.
December 7,1955
DECISION AND ORDER
On August 12, 1955, Trial Examiner Max M. Goldman issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
114 NLRB No. 202.
LOCAL 1139 1301
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 the copy of the In-
termediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed
exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief.
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
at the hearing 1 and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the
case, and hereby adopts the findings , conclusions , and recommendations
of the Trial Examiner.2
ORDER
Upon the entire record in this case and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of
the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Local 1139,
United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America, Ind., its
officers, agents, representatives, successors, and assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Causing or attempting to cause the Perfection Manufacturing
Corporation, its officers, agents, successors, or assigns to discriminate
against its employees in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
(b) In any other manner restraining or coercing employees of Per-
fection Manufacturing Corporation, its successors, or assigns, in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, or discourag-
ing membership in the Charging Union or any other labor organiza-
tion, except to the extent that such rights may be affected by an agree-
ment requiring membership in a labor organizaiton as a condition of
employment, as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Jointly and severally with the Respondent Company make
whole Albert Lesnak for any loss of pay which he may have suffered
by reason of the discrimination against him in the manner set forth
in the section entitled "The Remedy," in the Intermediate Report.
i At the close of the hearing , the Trial Examiner reserved ruling on the Respondent
Union's motion to dismiss all allegations of the complaint relating to this Respondent.
The Trial Examiner failed to rule upon this motion in his Intermediate Report. In
accordance with our decision herein, this motion is hereby denied.
2 On November 1, 1955, the Board, having been advised by the Regional Director for
the Eighteenth Region that the Respondent Employer had complied with the Intermediate
Report in Case No. 18-CA-649 by reinstating Albert Lesnak to his former position, by
posting the notices, as recommended by the Trial Examiner , and by paying a sum which
the Regional Director calculated to be half the net loss earnings during the period in-
volved, severed Case No. 18-CA-649 from this case, and closed that proceeding, subject
to reopening by the Board if such action should become necessary to effectuate the policies
of the Act in connection with the Board 's processing of the instant case.
1302 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(b) Post at its offices and meeting halls in Minneapolis , Minnesota,
where notices to members are, customarily posted, copies of the notice
attached to the Intermediate Report marked "Appendix B." I Copies'
of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the
Eighteenth Region, shall, after being duly signed by the Respondent
Union's representative, be posted by it immediately upon receipt there-
of and maintained by it for a period of at least sixty (60) consecutive
days thereafter. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent
Union to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered
by any other material.
(c) Mail forthwith to the Regional Director for the Eighteenth
Region signed copies of the notice attached to the Intermediate Re-
port marked' "Appendix B," for posting, if the Perfection Manufac-
turing Corporation is willing, in its. place of business at Minneapolis,
Minnesota, in places where notices to employees are customarily posted,
and for distribution to its employees.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Eighteenth Region in
writing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what
steps the Respondent has taken to comply therewith.
MEMBERS MURDOCK and BEAN took no part -in the consideration of
the above Decision and Order.
3 Said notice is hereby amended by substituting the words "A Decision and Order" for
the words "The Recommendations of a Trial Examiner ." In the event that this Order is
enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals , there shall be substituted for
the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order " the words "Pursuant to a Decree of the
United States Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order."
INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges duly filed by International Union of Electrical , Radio and Machine
Workers of America , CIO, herein called the Charging Union , the General Coun-
sel by the Regional Director for the Eighteenth Region ( Minneapolis , Minnesota),
of the National Labor Relations Board , herein called the Board , issued his complaint
dated April 8, 1955, against Perfection Manufacturing Corporation , herein called
the Respondent Company, and Local 1139 , United Electrical , Radio and Machine
Workers of America , Ind., herein called the Respondent Union, alleging that they
had engaged in and were engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8 (a) (3) and ( 1) and 8 (b) (1) (A) and (2 ), respectively, and Section
2 (6) and ( 7) of the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, 61 Stat . 136, herein
called the Act ., Copies of the complaint and the charge , together with notice of
hearing and an order consolidating the cases , were duly served upon the Respond-
ent Company , the Respondent Union , and the Charging Union.
With respect to unfair labor practices , the complaint alleges in substance that on
or about November 22, 1954, the Respondent Union, for reasons other than failure
to tender periodic dues and initiation fees uniformly required as a condition of acquir-
ing or retaining membership and specifically because of assistance and support to
the Charging Union , caused the Respondent Company to discharge Albert Lesnak
in violation of the Act. The answers of the respective Respondents deny the com-
mission of unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to notice , a hearing was held at Minneapolis , Minnesota , on April 28
through May 3 and from June 7 through 9, 1955, before the duly designated Trial
Examiner . The General Counsel and the respective Respondents were represented
.by counsel . Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross -examine witnesses,
LOCAL 1139 1303
and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues was afforded the parties. Counsel
for the respective parties presented argument on the record. The General Counsel
and the Respondent Union submitted briefs.
Upon the entire record in the case, and from his observation of the witnesses,
the Trial Examiner makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT COMPANY
The Respondent Company, a Minnesota corporation, is engaged in the manu-
facture and distribution of fluid pumps, vacuum pumps, and dairy equipment at
Minneapolis, Minnesota. During the past year, the Company shipped products
valued in excess of $1,000,000 to points outside the State of Minnesota. During
the same period the Company purchased and caused materials valued in excess
of $75,000 to be shipped to it from points outside the State of Minnesota. It is
found that the Respondent Company is engaged in commerce within the meaning
of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Local 1139, United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America, Ind.,
and International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America,
CIO, are labor organizations admitting to membership employees of the Respond-
ent Company.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The events
At the time of Albert Lesnak's discharge on November 22, 1954, he had about 18
months of service with the Respondent Company and had achieved the highest
hourly earnings in his department. Lesnak's activity on behalf of the Charging
Union first appears during the month of his discharge.
In November prior to his discharge Lesnak inquired separately of employees Carl
Post and Herb Hayes, committeemen of the Respondent Union, what they thought
of having another labor organization at the plant. In one of these instances the
Charging Union was named. On November 16, Lesnak, employee Frank Gibson,
the principal proponent of the Charging Union, and some other employees met after
work behind the plant to discuss unionization . On Friday, November 19, Gibson
circulated a petition in the plant calling for a ballot on whether to disaffiliate from
the Respondent Union. During the lunch hour Gibson gave Lesnak the petition and
Lesnak took it to another department where he, Lesnak, did not work and obtained
about 5 signatures of the 41 appearing on the document. After Lesnak returned
to his place of work employee Joseph Schutz, shop committeeman for the Respond-
ent Union, asked Lesnak what was going on and whether he was trying to get an-
other labor organization in the shop.'
Later that day, Friday, November 19, Gibson and Post met in the restroom where
Post told Gibson that he could have Gibson discharged for what he had been doing.
Gibson reported this incident to Lesnak and during the afternoon break period they
both went to see Post. Post was asked about his statement regarding having Gibson
discharged and Post, addressing himself to Lesnak, asked whether Lesnak did not
have a guilty conscience after having just been elected as a committeeman in the
Respondent Union. Post also declared that he could have those participating in
the activities on behalf of another union discharged. At closing time that day, as
the men were checking out, Lesnak, who had been behind in his dues payments to
the Respondent Union, offered Schutz his union book with $5 in it. Schutz had
collected dues from Lesnak and other employees in the plant but this time Schutz
rejected the offer.2
The next working day, Monday, November 22, Lesnak was discharged. That
morning Robert Bergstrom, financial secretary and business agent of the Respondent
1 Schutz testified that he did not recall talking to Lesnak about this time and that he
did not become aware of activities on behalf of another union until after Lesnak's discharge.
2 These findings relating to dues are based upon Lesnak's credible testimony corroborated
in part by Gibson. Schutz did not impress the Trial Examiner as a reliable witness and
his denials of the tender of the dues are not credited. Schutz pointed out In his testimony
that he and the regular steward left the plant together that day as usual and that Lesnak
did not offer the dues to the steward . It appears , however , that the regular steward was
absent from work at that time.
1304 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Union, appeared at the Respondent Company's plant and presented Lloyd Gramling,
who was in charge of personnel for the Company, with a letter requesting Lesnak's
discharge for failure to maintain membership, in good standing 3 Gramling there-
upon without making any inquiry wrote a letter of discharge to Lesnak effective at
the close of business that day, explaining that the action was in accordance with
the existing agreement and at the request of the Respondent Union. Later that
morning Gramling gave the letter to Robert Thomson, foreman of the department
in which Lesnak worked with about 30 or 35 other men.
Shortly after the lunch hour Thomson delivered the discharge letter to Lesnak.
Lesnak stated that he was behind in his dues but that was not the real reason for his
discharge. Lesnak declared that the real reason was his activity for another union,
and further declared, referring to a reimbursement fee of $2.04 for time lost while
acting on a grievance which fee the Respondent Union had not yet paid, that the
Respondent Union owed him money. Thomson stated that no purpose would be
served by his knowing the reasons as there was nothing he could do but abide by
the contract and that Lesnak would have to clear the matter up with the Respondent
Union. Lesnak asked to see Gramling and Thomson informed him that Gramling
was busy at the time. Lesnak thereupon without completing the day's work turned
in his tools and left for the offices of the Respondent Union.
When Lesnak arrived at the Respondent Union's office he saw Bergstrom and
asked about the discharge letter. Bergstrom told Lesnak that he was delinquent in
his dues. Bergstrom also inquired of Lesnak as to whether he had anything to do
with what was going on at the shop and whether he signed or had anything to do
with the petition that had been passed around. Lesnak denied any connection with
the petition to Bergstrom and asked if he could pay his dues and also whether he
could be reinstated in the Respondent Union . Bergstrom replied in the negative as
to both inquiries and as Lesnak left the office Lesnak told Bergstrom that he would
get even with Bergstrom. Later that day, after working hours, Lesnak returned to
the office with employee Elmer Lafferty and asked to pay his dues and also whether
he could be reinstated . Bergstrom again replied in the negative . On this and/or
the prior incident in Bergstrom's office Lesnak had $10 with him 4
The next morning, November 23, when Lesnak appeared at the plant and reported
to Thomson for work, Thomson referred Lesnak to Gramling. When Lesnak saw
Gramling, Gramling told Lesnak that he could not go to work because he was not
in good standing with the Respondent Union. Lesnak stated, as Gramling had
already heard from Thomson, that his (Lesnak's) discharge was brought about for
reasons other than the nonpayment of dues. Gramling told Lesnak to place himself
in good standing with the Respondent Union and that was the only condition in
which the Respondent Company was interested. Lesnak stated that he had powerful
interests behind him and that they would process the matter to a conclusion.
B. The conclusions
On November 19, when Lesnak offered $5 together with his union book to Schutz,
Lesnak had not paid his September, October, or November dues. If Schutz had
then accepted the $5 in dues , as he had in the past, Lesnak would have thus paid his
September and October dues. As to the November dues Lesnak would have been in
8 The body of the letter dated November 22, 1954, follows :
Paragraph 4 of the current contract between the Perfection Manufacturing Corpora-
tion and Local 1139, United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America,
provides membership in good standing as a condition of employment for all employees
who have completed the sixty (60) calendar days of employment.
The Union requests you to terminate the employment of Albert F. Lesnak for
failure to maintain membership in good standing.
Paragraph four of the contract between the Respondents then in effect reads as follows :
It is mutually agreed between the Union and the Company that all employees
who, upon the signing of this agreement , are members of the Union, shall be re-
quired to be and remain members of the Union in good standing for the period of
this agreement as a condition of employment . New employees shall become members
of the Union upon completion of sixty calendar days of their employment , and shall
remain members for the period of this agreement in good standing as a condition
of employment.
• According to Bergstrom he first learned about Lesnak 's activity on behalf of the
Charging Union from Lesnak on the first occasion when Lesnak came to the office that
day and volunteered the information . As between Lesnak and Bergstrom , Lesnak Im-
pressed the Trial Examiner as the more reliable witness and his testimony is credited.
LOCAL 1139 1305
.the status of benefiting by the 30-day grace period the Respondent Union in practice
grants members for a current month's dues. Had the tender been accepted, Lesnak
would thus not have been subject to discharge under the union-security clause. It is
accordingly found that the Respondent Union's act in causing Lesnak's discharge by
the Respondent Company on November 22, 1954, was in violation of Section 8 (b)
(1) (A) and (2).5
There remains for consideration whether in discharging Lesnak at the Respondent
.Union's request, the Respondent Company had reasonable grounds for believing
that the request for the discharge was made for reasons other than a failure by
Lesnak to tender dues uniformly required as a condition of retaining membership.
At the time of his discharge Lesnak informed the Respondent Company that the real
reason for the Respondent Union's request for his discharge was his activity on
behalf of another labor organization and not his being behind in his dues. Lesnak
also pointed out at the time, as to his financial obligations to the Respondent Union,
that it owed him money. The Respondent Company, however, made no inquiry and
took the position with Lesnak that no purpose would be served by learning the real
reasons for the Respondent Union's conduct as it had to abide by the contract and
that this was a matter between Lesnak and the Respondent Union.
Not knowing the legal significance of his tender of dues, Lesnak raised with the
Respondent Company only the debt the Respondent Union owed him in connection
with services on a grievance and thus put the Company on notice that there was
some question as to the Respondent Union's assertion as to Lesnak's lack of good
standing. In addition, Lesnak informed the Respondent Company that the cause for
the Respondent Union's discharge request was his activity on behalf of another labor
organization. Having thus been put on notice and faced with these conflicting as-
sertions as to Lesnak's status with the Respondent Union and the cause for the Re-
spondent Union's action, the Respondent Company chose to ignore the facts as to
which it was put on notice and make no inquiry but proceeded to execute the request
for Lesnak's discharge. To state the proposition in terms of an adage, there is
none so blind as he who will not see: Under these circumstances it is found that
the Respondent Company had reasonable grounds for believing that the request
for the discharge was for reasons other than a failure by Lesnak to tender his dues
and further that his discharge on November 22, 1954, was in violation of Section
8 (a) (3) and (1) of the Act .6
N. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondents set forth in section III, above, occurring in con-
nection with the operations of the Respondent Company described in section I,
above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and com-
merce among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and
obstructing commerce and a free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondents have violated the Act, the Trial Examiner shall
recommend that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. The Trial Examiner will thus recom-
mend, among other things, that the Respondent Company offer Albert Lesnak
immediate and full reinstatement to his former or substantially equivalent position,
without prejudice to his seniority and other rights and privileges, and that the Re-
spondent Company and Respondent Union jointly and severally make Lesnak whole
for any loss of pay he may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against him
by payment of a sum of money equal to the amount of wages he would have earned
from November 22, 1954, the date of the discrimination against him, to the date
of a proper offer of reinstatement, less his net earnings during this period. Back pay
shall be computed in accordance with the formula stated in F. W. Woolworth Com-
pany, 90 NLRB 289.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the
case, the Trial Examiner makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Local 1139, United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America, Ind.,
and International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America, CIO,
are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
6 Aluminum Workers International Union, Local No. 153 , AFL, 112 NLRB 619.
6 Anaconda Copper Mining Company, 110 NLRB 1925.
1306 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Albert
Lesnak, thereby encouraging membership in the Respondent Union and discouraging
membership in the Charging Union , the Respondent Company has engaged in and
is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) and
8 (a) (1) of the Act.
3. By causing the Respondent Company to discriminate against Albert Lesnak in
violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act, the Respondent Union has engaged in and
is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (2) and
8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the Labor Management
Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT encourage membership in Local 1139, United Electrical,
Radio and Machine Workers of America, Ind., or any other labor organization,
or discourage membership in the International Union of Electrical, Radio and
Machine Workers of America, CIO, or any other labor organization, by
discriminatorily discharging any of our employees or discriminating in any
other manner in regard to their hire or tenure of employment or term or condi-
tion of employment.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act,
except to the extent that such rights may be affected by an agreement requiring
membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment as author-
ized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
WE WILL offer Albert Lesnak immediate and full reinstatement to his former
or substantially equivalent position without prejudice to his seniority and other
rights and privileges.
WE WILL jointly and severally with Local 1139, United Electrical, Radio and
Machine Workers of America, Ind., make Albert Lesnak whole for any loss of
pay he suffered as a result of the discrimination against him.
All our employees are free to become, remain, or refrain from becoming, mem-
bers of any labor organization, except to the extent that such right may be affected
by an agreement as authorized by Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
PERFECTION MANUFACTURING CORPORATION,
Employer.
Dated---------------- By----------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
APPENDIX B
NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF LOCAL 1139, UNITED ELECTRICAL, RADIO AND MACHINE
WORKERS OF AMERICA, IND., AND TO ALL EMPLOYEES OF THE PERFECTION MANU-
FACTURING CORPORATION
Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the Labor Management
Relations Act, we hereby notify you that:
WE WILL NOT cause or attempt to cause Perfection Manufacturing Corpora-
tion to discriminatorily discharge employees or otherwise discriminate
against employees in regard to their hire or tenure of employment or any term
or condition of employment to encourage membership in this or any other
labor organization in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
• WE WILL NOT in any other manner restrain or coerce employees of the Per-
fection Manufacturing Corporation, or its successors or assigns, in the exercise
MUSKIN MANUFACTURING CO., INC. 1307
of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, or discourage membership in
the International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America,
CIO, or any other labor organization, except as authorized by Section 8 (a) (3)
of the Act.
WE WILL jointly and severally with the Perfection Manufacturing Corpora-
tion make Albert Lesnak whole for any loss of pay he suffered as a result of
the discrimination against him.
LOCAL 1139, UNITED ELECTRICAL, RADIO AND
MACHINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, IND.,
Labor Organization.
Dated---------------- By----------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Muskin Manufacturing Co., Inc. and United Furniture Workers
of America, CIO, Petitioner . Case No. 4-RC-2687. December 7,
1955
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Bernard Samoff, hearing
officer. 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 I finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. The Intervenor herein, Local 1119, United Textile Workers of
America, AFL, contends that its existing contract with the Employer,
effective May 18, 1954, through December 31, 1956, is a bar to a pres-
ent determination of representatives. The Petitioner argues that the
contract is not a bar to the proceeding on the ground, among others,
that there is a schism in Local 1119 and this organization is, in fact,
defunct. In support of its position, the Petitioner relies primarily
upon the alleged action taken by the membership of Local 1119 at a
special meeting held on April 22, 1955. Although the record reveals
that this meeting was a duly constituted meeting attended by about
70 of approximately 100 members of Local 1119 and was called for
the express purpose of disaffiliating from the AFL and affiliating
with CIO, there is conflicting testimony as to what transpired at the
meeting. The Petitioner's witnesses testified that immediately after
the opening of the meeting a resolution to disaffiliate was read and
seconded, that there was formal discussion on this resolution, that a
vote by a showing of hands was taken on the resolution, and that the
' Members Murdock and Bean did not participate in this Decision and Order.
114 NLRB No. 199.