Buckeye Cellulose Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 21, 1970

184 N.L.R.B. 606 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

606 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Buckeye Cellulose Corporation and Local 19, Retail,
Wholesale and ' Department Store Union,
AFL-CIO, Petitioner . Case 26-RC-3735
July 21, 1970
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, MCCULLOCH, AND JENKINS
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of
the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a
hearing was held before Hearing Officer James V.
Coggin , Jr., of the National Labor Relations Board.
Thereafter , the Employer , the Petitioner, and the
Intervenor2 filed briefs.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connec-
tion with this case to a three-member panel.
The Hearing Officer's rulings made at the hearing
are free from prejudicial error and are hereby af-
firmed.
Upon the entire record in this case , the Board
finds:
1. The parties stipulated and we find that the
Employer is engaged in commerce within the mean-
ing of the Act and it will effectuate the purposes of
the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
2. The parties stipulated and we find that the
Petitioner and the Intervenor are labor organiza-
tions within the meaning of the Act and claim to
represent certain employees of the Employer.
3. We find that no question affecting commerce
exists 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, for
the following reasons:
The Employer is engaged at Memphis , Tennes-
see, in the purchasing and processing of cotton lint-
ers, cottonseed , and soy beans . On March 18,
1970, the Petitioner requested recognition as bar-
gaining representative for the employees in the
requested unit . The Employer did not reply to this
request , and on March 24, 1970, the Petitioner
filed the petition herein , seeking an election in the
following unit , which the parties stipulated is ap-
propriate and which is substantially the same as the
unit covered by a current agreement between the
Employer and Local 19, Retail , Wholesale and De-
partment Store Union, AFL-CIO:
All production and maintenance employees
employed at Employer 's Hollywood Mill,
located at 2782 Chelsea Avenue, Memphis,
Tennessee , and excluding all clerical em-
The name of the Petitioner appears as amended at the hearing
' Local 19, Distributive Workers of America, affiliated with the National
Council of the Distributive Workers of America, was permitted to mter-
184 NLRB No. 84
ployees, staff employees, watchmen-guards,
and supervisors as defined in the Act.
On September 30, 1953, the Employer's
predecessor, Buckeye Cotton Oil Company, and
Distributive, Processing and Office Workers of
America, CIO, for itself and on behalf of Local 19,
DPO, executed a collective-bargaining agreement
which was effective on September 28, 1953, for a
1-year period and was automatically renewable
from year to year. Thereafter, the parties entered
into a series of collective-bargaining agreements,
the most recent of which was executed on Sep-
tember 29, 1967, by the Employer and Local 19,
which had, in 1954, affiliated with Retail,
Wholesale and Department Store Union,
AFL-CIO. This agreement, which was effective
until September 28, 1970, was amended on Sep-
tember 29, 1968, and again on September 29,
1969. The second amendment provides that the en-
tire agreement shall expire on September 29, 1971.
The 1967 agreement and the amendments
thereto were signed on behalf of the contracting
union by Earl H. Fisher, president, and several
members of Local 19. These agreements were not
signed by any RWDSU representative. Fisher
testified that he was president of Local 19, RWD-
SU, at the time the current agreement was ex-
ecuted; that Local 19 has disaffiliated from RWD-
SU, and has affiliated with Distributive Workers of
America, National Council of Distributive Workers
of America; and that he has continued to hold the
office of president of Local 19. Fisher further
testified that he has obtained new dues-checkoff
authorizations for the Intervenor, signed by 71 or
72 of the 113 employees presently in the bargaining
unit and has so informed the Employer.
By letter dated February 23, 1970, and signed by
Earl H. Fisher, president, the Employer was
notified that more than 51 percent of the members
of Local 19, RWDSU, AFL-CIO, voted on
November 20-21, 1969, to disaffiliate from the
RWDSU, AFL-CIO, and that Local 19 had af-
filiated with the National Council of Distributive
Workers of America.
James E. Jenkins, the Employer's manager of in-
dustrial relations, testified that the Employer has 81
checkoff authorizations signed by employees for
RWDSU, AFL-CIO, and that the Employer is con-
tinuing to collect dues pursuant to these checkoff
authorizations, but, upon advice of counsel, is hold-
ing in escrow the moneys collected. Jenkins further
testified, and the record shows, that there has been
no interruption of work or effect on production in
the plant since the disaffiliation.
vene on the basis of its claim to be a party to the current collective -bargain-
mg agreement
BUCKEYE CELLULOSE CORPORATION
The labor organizations herein are the identical
labor organizations involved in Kimco Auto
Products , Inc., 183 NLRB No . 109, and Bluff City
Transfer and Storage Co., 184 NLRB No. 83 , issued
this day. Inasmuch as the issue of schism and the
underlying facts relating to their alleged intraunion
conflict are the same in all three cases , the parties,
by stipulation moved that the Board take adminis-
trative notice of the records in Kimco and Bluff
City.
As in Kimco and Bluff City, the Petitioner takes
the position that the existing contract is not a bar to
an election because a schism has occurred in the
certified bargaining representative , and both the
Petitioner and the Intervenor claim to be the col-
lective -bargaining representative party to the con-
tract . The Employer in the present proceeding
takes the position that the existing agreement is
3On the basis of the present record, it would appear that the amendment
of September 29, 1969, providing for a termination date of September 29,
607
valid and therefore the representation claim of the
Intervenor is premature.
In these circumstances , and upon the entire
record in this case and in the Kimco and Bluff City
cases , we find , for the reasons set forth in Kimco,
that the disaffiliation action taken by the employees
in the bargaining unit did not create such confusion
in the bargaining relationship as to remove the con-
tract as a bar to an election.
Accordingly , as the existing collective -bargaining
agreement will not expire until at least September
28, 1970 ,3 we find it a bar and shall dismiss the
petition.
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the petition filed herein
be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
1971, constituted a premature extension Neither the Employer nor the In-
tervenor urges that the contract is a bar until the 1971 date