American Radiator and Standard Sanitary Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 5, 1951

93 N.L.R.B. 7 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

AMERICAN RADIATOR AND STANDARD SANITARY CORPORATION 7
MEMBERS MURDOCK and STYLEs took no part in the consideration of
the above Supplemental Decision and Certification of Representatives.
AMERICAN RADIATOR AND STANDARD SANITARY CORPORATION (STAMPING
PLANT) and UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER
AMERICAN RADIATOR AND STANDARD SANITARY CORPORATION (BOND
PLANT) and UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER.
Cases Nos. 3-RC-558 and 3-RC-572. February 5, 1951
Decision and Direction of Election
Upon separate petitions duly filed, a consolidated' hearing was
held before Ralph E. Kennedy, 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 National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members
Reynolds and Murdock].
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 questions concerning representation :
The Intervenor, Local 64, United Office and Professional Workers
of America,2 contends that current collective bargaining contracts
between it and the Employer are a bar to this proceeding. The Peti-
tioner asserts that the contracts are not a bar because a schism in the
membership of the Intervenor creates a doubt concerning the con-
tinued representation of the Employer's employees by the Intervenor.
The Employer takes a neutral position on this issue.
Since 1944, the Employer has engaged in collective bargaining with
the Intervenor for certain office workers in each of the two plants in-
volved herein. Separate contracts have been executed for each plant,
and the current contracts expire on March 31, 1952.
As a result of the expulsion of UOPWA from the Congress of In-
dustrial Organizations and the proposed amalgamation of UOPWA
I The captioned cases were consolidated for hearing by order of the Regional Director
dated November 15, 1950.
2 The international union will be referred to herein as UOPWA.
93 NLRB No. 4.
8 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
with an independent labor organization, the Intervenor's membership
in each of the bargaining units took steps to change their bargaining
representative. On September 19, 1950, pursuant to proper notice
circulated by the vice president and stewards of the Intervenor, a
meeting was held by the Intervenor's members in the Stamping Plant
(3-RC-558). Approximately. 50 of the 110 employees in this unit
attended the meeting, and unanimously voted to disaffiliate from
TJOPWA and to affiliate with the Petitioner. A similar meeting,
notice of which was mailed to each employee by the president of the
Intervenor, was held on October 11, 1950, by the Intervenor's mem-
bers in the Bond Plant (3-RC-572). Approximately 40 of the 96
employees in the unit attended this meeting, and they too voted unani-
mously to disaffiliate from UOPWA and affiliate with the Petitioner.
Uncontroverted testimony at the hearing indicates that all employees
at the meetings signed authorization cards for the Petitioner, and that
the other employees in each unit signed such cards later. There have
"been no meetings of the Intervenor since the disaffiliations, nor has the
''Intervenor since that time processed any grievances.
It appears from the uncontested evidence in the record that there is
now no one in the plants representing the Intervenor, and that for all
practical purposes the Intervenor is a defunct organization at these
plants. It is clear, therefore, that the normal bargaining relationship
between the Employer and the Intervenor has become a matter of such
confusion, because of the events described above, that the relationship
between them no longer can be said to promote stability in industrial
relations. Under these circumstances, in accordance with established
Board precedents,3 we believe that the conflicting claims to representa-
tion of the two labor organizations involved can best be resolved by an
election. Without deciding property rights or collective bargaining
3 Boston Machine Works Company, 89 NLRB 59 . See also J. J. Tourek Manufacturing
Co., 90 NLRB 5.
The Intervenor contends that the separate meetings of .the employees in each plant did
not constitute a meeting of the Intervenor , and therefore did not amount to the formalized
collective action which the Board has held necessary to create a schism in the recognized
bargaining representative . See Telex, Inc., 90 NLRB 202; Pacific-Gamble Robinson Com-
pany, 89 NLRB 293. It is true that regular meetings of the Intervenor were attended
by its membership in both plants . However, the two meetings were specially convened
by the Intervenor 's chief officers in each plant for the specific purpose of considering
disaffiliation from UOPWA.
In view of the separate contract units at each plant, and in view of the fact that the
two meetings covered all members of the Intervenor employed by the Employer , we do not
believe that the failure of the two groups of employees to meet jointly for disaffiliation
purposes militates against the application of the doctrines set forth in the Boston Machine
and Tourek cases. See also The Bassick Company, 89 NLRB 1143 , where the Board
applied the schism doctrine despite separate disaffiliation meetings of the day and night
shifts.
CHERRY AND WEBB COMPANY
duties of the parties with reference to the current contracts,4 we are
of the opinion that these contracts are not a bar to a present determina-
tion of representatives.
We find that questions affecting commerce exist concerning the
representation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of
Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the act.
4. We find that employees in all classifications of office work in the
Employer's Stamping and Bond plants, Buffalo, New York, includ-
ing janitresses in the business offices and time-study and methods men,
but excluding all other employees, confidential and professional em-,
ployees, and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute, in each plant,
a separate unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.'
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication in this
volume.]
4 While the Employer is agreeable to the disposition of the representation questioned by
the Board , it contends that the current contracts should be honored until their expiration.
The legar issues raised in this connection , however, cannot properly be determined by the
Board in a representation proceeding under Section 9 (c) of the Act . Although the
possible choice of a bargaining representative by these employees , necessarily will operate
to affect the rights and obligations of the parties , the duty of either party to bargain
under existing or new contracts is a matter that must be determined by the application
of other provisions of the Act in the light of a factual situation not now before us. See
Boston Machine Works Company , supra.
These units conform substantially to the current contract units which all parties agreed
to be appropriate . We do not list the numerous job exclusions detailed in the contracts,
as they appear to fall within one of the general exclusionary groups in the unit description.
CHERRY AND WEBB COMPANY, PROVIDENCE 1 and RETAIL , WIIOLESALE
AND DEPARTMENT STORE UNION , CIO, PETITIONER . Case No. 1-
RC-1923. February 5, 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 Joseph Lepie, 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 [Members Houston, Murdock, and Styles].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1 The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing.
93 NLRB No 8