Acme Quality Paints, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 8, 1951

95 N.L.R.B. 1025 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

ACME QUALITY PAINTS, INC. 1025
no electricity is generated in the Employer's plant, all the electricity
used being purchased. The laborer does janitorial work in the pow-
erhouse. He and the station operators are the only employees in the
unit sought who do their work in the powerhouse.
Upon the entire record, we perceive no justification for severing
from the existing production and maintenance unit this group of
employees who have heterogeneous skills and functions, and who
work in different buildings in widely separated areas. Accordingly,
we find that the proposed unit is inappropriate and we shall, therefore,
dismiss the petition herein.'
Order
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition herein be, and it hereby is,
dismissed.
1 Cf. Scovill Manufacturing Company, 75 NLRB 1266.
ACME QUALITY PAINTS, INC. and UNITED GAS, COKE AND CHEMICAL
WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER. Case No. 7-I?C-1095.
August 8, 1951
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 W. A. Reinke, 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 [Members Houston, Reynolds, 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 certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. The Employer and Local 12222, District 50, United Mine Work-
ers of America, herein called the Intervenor, contend that a collective
bargaining contract effective from June 1, 1950, to May 31, 1952, is
a bar to this proceeding. The Petitioner contends that the contract
cannot operate as a bar because of schism in the membership of Local
12222.
1 The petition and other formal papers are amended to show the correct name of the
Employer.
95 NLRB No. 124.
1026 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On January 31, 1951, the president of Local 12222 called a special
meeting of that -Local to be held on February 4, 1951, at the Murray
Local Hall, the usual meeting place. Notices of this meeting were
posted on the Employer's bulletin boards on the evening of January
31, 19512 On February 1, 1951, notices of the special meeting were
distributed to employees at the gates of the plant. Both notices called
attention to grievances against the Intervenor, but only the posted
notices stated that the specific purpose of the meeting was to vote on
the question'of continued affiliation with the Intervenor. The posted
notices were signed by Leonard Parent, president of Local 12222. The
handbill notices were signed by 4 officers of the Local.' This meeting
on February 4, 1951, was attended by approximately 100 members 4
including the officers of the Local, who voted unanimously to disaffil-
iate from the Intervenor and to affiliate with the Petitioner.5 At this
meeting the 4 officers who signed the handbill notices formally
resigned from Local 12222, and were duly elected by the employees
to a new organizing committee of the Petitioner.
In the meantime, on January 31, 1951, the day on which the notice
of the February 4 meeting appeared on the bulletin board, the regional
director of the Intervenor, learning of the secession movement, called
a special meeting of Local 12222 for February 3, 1951.6 At this meet-
ing, Parent and Massie were expelled from the Intervenor and new
officers were elected.
On February 5, 1951, the Petitioner notified the Employer of the
results of the disaffiliation meeting of February 4, and requested the
Employer to recognize it as bargaining representative.' On Febru-
? Albert Massie, Jr., recording secretary of Local 12222 , testified that he . posted the
notices on January 31 , 1951, but that they disappeared from the bulletin boards through
sources unknown to him.
s Leonard Parent, president , Albert Massie, Jr., recording secretary , James Frum, chief
steward, and Charles Berry , steward.
4 Of approximately 385 employees at the plant , only 40 employees usually attend union
meetings.
3 One of the officers , an adherent of the Intervenor , testified that only affirmative votes
were requested and that there was no request for dissenting votes. The record, however,
discloses that no objection was raised to this procedure by any of the members present.
6 The Intervenor ' s witness testified that approximately 120 employees attended, this
meeting. A witness for the Petitioner , however, testified that only 32 employees attended
this meeting and that he was ordered out by the regional director.
4 The Employer and the Intervenor contend that in view of the fact that Parent and
Massie were expelled at the February 3 meeting , they are no longer officers and could not
legally call a meeting of Local 12222 . We find no merit in this contention . At the time
the notices for,the February 4 meeting were posted ; Parent and Massie were acting within
their authority as officers of the Local and this authority could not be retroactively
vitiated by the action of the regional director at the February 3 meeting . We. likewise
find no merit in the Employer 's contention that the garnishment proceeding filed by Parent
and three other officers in the circuit court for Wayne County on February 7, 1951, affected
their pos itions as officers of Local 12222 on February 4. Moreover , it is not mandatory"
that a. meeting for the purpose of disaffiliation of a local union be called by its president.
Fitzgerald Mills Corporation , 95 NLRB 948.
ACME QUALITY PAINTS, INC. 1027
ary 8, 1951, the Employer refused the recognition, alleging that the
Intervenor was still functioning and able to administer its contract
with the Employer. On February 23, the Petitioner filed the instant
petition.
The Employer has continued to recognize the Intervenor as bar-
gaining representative and the Intervenor has processed grievances
and held regular monthly meetings attended by approximately 50
members. At no time, however, has the membership of the Intervenor,
by formal action or otherwise, effectively repudiated the action for
disaffiliation taken at the February 4 meeting. The foregoing circum-
stances indicate that the Intervenor is not defunct. However, the
formal action to disaffiliate from the Intervenor and to affiliate with-
the Petitioner establishes that-there has been a schism within the or-
ganizatiol, which-we find, for reasons stated in the Boston Machine
case,8 removed the existing contract as a bar to a present determination
of representatives.9
We find that a question affecting commerce exists concerning the
representation of the Employer's employees within the meaning of
Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. In accordance with the substantial agreement of the parties, we
find that the following employees of the Employer constitute a unit
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the mean-
ing of Section 9 (b) of the Act:
All production and maintenance employees at the Employer's De-
troit, Michigan, paint plant, including truck drivers, janitors, hourly
men in technical service, powerhouse employees, and production clerks
working in the factory, but excluding office and salaried employees,
watchmen,1° foremen, assistant foremen, and all other supervisors.
'[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
8 Boston Machine Works, 89 NLRB 59. See also Harrisburg Railways Company, 94 ,
NLRB 1028 . In view of this finding , we find it unnecessary to resolve other issues
raised in the Petitioner 's brief with respect to the validity of the contract between the
Employer and the Intervenor. .
'The Employer moved at the hearing that , in the event the Board directs an election
the Board should indicate that the certified representative has the responsibility of
administering the contract already existing between the parties. For reasons previously
stated , the motion is denied. Boston Machine Works, supra.
"The Employer agreed to the inclusion of watchmen in the agreed contract unit, subject
to the determination of the Board . As the record discloses that watchmen are primarily
plant-protection employees , and spend more than 50 percent of their time as guards, we
find that they are employed as guards within the meaning of the Act, and we shall exclude
them from the appropriate unit C. V. Hill and Company , Inc., 76 NLRB 158, Wiley Mfg.•
Inc., 92 NLRB 40.
961974-52-vol . 95,-66