West Steel Casting Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 19, 1952

98 N.L.R.B. 153 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

WEST STEEL CASTING COMPANY 153
that the majority apparently are not only proceeding on the contrary
assumption but go even further and hold that because in their view,,
the Regional Director disobeyed the clear mandate of our Rules, he is
permitted to exercise an authority to reinstate a petition which he,
would not have possessed had he abided by our Rules.
WEST STEEL CASTING COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED
AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF
AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER . Case No. 8-RC 1439. February
19, 1952
Decision and Order
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Charles A. Fleming, hearing
officer. The hearing officer 's rulings-made at the hearing are free from
prejudicial 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 Murdock and Styles].
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 reasons:
The Petitioner seeks a unit of production and maintenance employees
at the Employer's steel castings and wheel manufacturing plant
at Cleveland, Ohio. International Molders & Foundry Workers Union
of North America, Local 244, the Intervenor herein, contends that
its current contract with the Employer operates as a bar to the instant
petition. The Petitioner, in reply, alleges that the contract is not
a bar (1) because of an illegal union-security clause in the contract
and (2) because of a schism within the Intervenor' s local organization.
The Employer takes no position with respect to the contract bar issue.
The Union-Security Clause
On June 9, 1951, the Employer and the Intervenor entered into a
contract effective for a period of 1 year and containing a provision
1 We find, contrary to the contention of the Petitioner, and in view of the facts set
forth below, thtt the Intervenor herein is a currently existing and functioning labor
organization , within the meaning of the Act. Twentieth Century -Fox Film Corporation,
96 NLRB 1052.
98 NLRB No. 32.
154 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that if either party to the contract shall desire to renew the same, it
shall notify the other in writing 60 days prior to the termination
date of the contract. The contract contains the following union-
security clause :
All employees who, on the date of execution of this agreement,
are members of the Union in good standing in accordance with
the constitution and bylaws of the Union, and all employees who
may thereafter become members, shall, as a condition of employ-
ment, remain members of the Union in good standing for the
duration of the Contract, provided loss of good standing under
this article is limited to termination of membership for failure
to pay regular monthly dues.
The contract does not require any employee to become a union member.
For reasons set forth in Charles A. Krause Milling Co.,2 the legality
of the contract is unimpaired by the fact that it contains no 30-day
escape clause for employees who were members of the Intervenor on
the date of execution of the contract or thereafter. Nor, for reasons
set forth in Davis Motor Company, Inc., is the legality of the con-
tract impaired by the fact that the execution of the union-security
clause was not preceded by a union-shop authorization election, the
requirement for such an election having been eliminated by a recent
amendment to the Act.3 We therefore find no merit in the Petitioner's
first contention.
Schism
On August 26,1951, a special meeting of the Intervenor was called
by its president with the approval of its shop committee. Although
the meeting was advertised on the Employer's bulletin board, the
purpose of the meeting was not therein stated; shop committeemen,
however, by word of mouth, informed several of the members of the
purpose of the meeting. The meeting, held in a private hall which
had not been used for meetings of the Intervenor for more than 4
years, was attended by 73 of the 165 to 180 members of the Intervenor
at the Employer's plant, including nearly all the officers of Local 244.4
Officials of the Petitioner were present by invitation. At the meeting
an employee, not then a member of the Intervenor, presented motions
to the effect that Local 244 disaffiliate from the Intervenor's Inter-
national and that the employees present affiliate with the Petitioner,
2 97 NLRB 536.
8 Public Law 189, 82nd Cong, Chap. 534, 1st Sess. Davis Motor Company, Ino., 97
NLRB 125.
4 Ten to twenty employees attend regular meetings.
WEST STEEL CASTING COMPANY 155
which motions were carried by a standing vote of 72 to 0, with 1
abstention.
Since August 26, 19'51, the date of the aforesaid meeting, Local 244
has continued to perform several of the usual functions of a labor
organization, including the collection of dues, the handling of griev-
ances by members of the shop committee in accordance with the
terms of the current contract between the Employer and the Initer-
wenor, the holding of a membership meeting at which new officers were
elected, the submission of the books of Local 244 to the International
for auditing, and the maintenance of a bank account in the name -of
Local 244. On the other hand, although certain of the dissident
,employees who attended the August 26 meeting later individually
joined the Petitioner, these employees have not, since that date, sought
a charter from, or functioned as a group affiliated with, the Petitioner;
furthermore, at no time since the August meeting has this group or
the Petitioner notified the Intervenor's International of the disaffilia-
tion action taken at the meeting.
The Petitioner contends that the foregoing events have given rise
to such confusion and uncertainty with respect to the status of the
bargaining representative at the Employer's plant as to warrant our
directing an election at this time under the "schism doctrine" as enun-
ciated in the Boston Machine case.5
However, in this case, as in the recent Saginaw case,6 the circum-
stances are not such as to persuade us that an exception to the contract
bar rule would serve any purpose, other than to permit a dissident
group of members to express their dissatisfaction with the bargain
made by the Intervenor holding the contract. For the reasons more
fully stated in the Saginaw decision, we shall not apply the "schism
doctrine" in this case, and we therefore find no merit in the Petition-
er's second contention.
Under these circumstances, we find that the current contract between
the Employer and the Intervenor operates as a bar to an immediate
determination of representatives, and we shall therefore dismiss the
instant petition.'
Order
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the instant petition be, and the same
hereby is, dismissed.
Boston Machine Works, 89 NLRB 59.
Saginaw Furniture Shops, Inc , 97 NLRB 1488.
' In view of our decision herein , we find it unnecessary to consider the ' IDterVeDor's
motion to reopen the record or the other contentions of the parties with respect to other
issues in the case,