Dewey & Almy Chemical Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 12, 1951

94 N.L.R.B. 1178 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

1178 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the interests and working conditions of the division clerks are not
substantially different from those of the operating and maintenance
employees and are not unlike plant clerical employees. We shall
therefore include the clerks in the unit.
Welders, meter mechanics, master mechanic, Diesel mechanic, and
electrician: The Employer would exclude these individuals from the
unit as supervisors. The record shows, however, that these individuals
do not possess supervisory authority within the meaning of the Act.
To the extent that they direct their helpers, such direction is of the
type generally exercised by an experienced employee over those who
are less skilled. We shall therefore include these employees in the
Unit .3
We find that all operating and maintenance employees employed
by the Employer, including North and South Division clerks, welders,
meter mechanic, master mechanic, Diesel mechanic, and electrician,
but excluding the chemist, all office clerical employees, guards, profes-
sional employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a
unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within
the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
' Cf. United States Gypsum Company, 85 NLRB 162.
DEWEY & ALMY CHEMICAL COMPANY, INC.' and INTERNATIONAL
UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT & AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT
WORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL 686, UAW-CIO, PETITIONER. Case
No. 4-RC-634. June 121 1951
Decision and Direction of Election
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before William J.
Cavers, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hear-
ing 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
Houston and Reynolds].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the National Labor Relations Act. • . .
1 The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing.
94 NLRB No. 178.
DEWEY & ALMY CHEMICAL COMPANY, INC. 1179
2. The Petitioner and Local 357, International Chemical Workers
Union, AFL, the Intervenor, are labor organizations claiming to rep-
resent employees of the Employer.
3. The question concerning representation :
The Intervenor contends that a current collective bargaining agree-
ment between it and the Employer is a bar to this proceeding. The
Petitioner asserts that a schism has arisen within the membership
of the Intervenor, which prevents the contract from serving as a bar.
The Employer takes no position on the question concerning repre-
sentation, but insists that if the Board directs an election the chosen
labor organization should be bound to administer its current collec-
tive bargaining contract with the Intervenor.
Following the certification of the Intervenor by the Board as the
result of a consent election, a collective bargaining agreement was
signed by the Intervenor and Employer on October 18, 1948, for an
initial term of 3 years to October 18, 1951. On August 28, 1950, a
new agreement was executed by them for a period extending to De-
cember 22, 1951, with a provision for yearly automatic renewal
thereafter.
On January 27, 1951, pursuant to a notice duly posted by the Inter-
venor's president, a special meeting of the Employer's employees was
held, attended by all the Intervenor's officers and a preponderant
majority of its membership.2 A resolution to disaffiliate from the
Intervenor and to affiliate with the Petitioner was unanimously
adopted, and the Petitioner's business agent notified the Employer
by letter of this action.
On February 25, 1951, a meeting was held that was attended by all
the Intervenor's officers except 1, and by approximately 15 or 20 other
employees. When the meeting was opened, one of the group inquired
whether it was a meeting of the Petitioner or the Intervenor, and upon
being told that it was a meeting of the Intervenor, most of those pres-
ent left the room. About 8 persons, including the Intervenor's officers,
remained . On March 3, 1951, the Petitioner held a meeting attended
by approximately 200 of the Employer's employees, including 2 of
the Intervenor's officers. The members present reaffirmed their affilia-
tion with the Petitioner.
Since the action of January 27, 1951, both the Intervenor and the
Petitioner have processed employee grievances with the Employer.
The Employer has continued to check off union dues, but as of the
time of the hearing had not turned them over to either of the con-
tending labor organizations. The Intervenors International has ap-
pointed an administrator to manage the affairs of the Intervenor's
local.
2 Out of a membership of approximately 385, 200 to 250 members attended the meeting.
1180 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
We believe that the record in this case reveals a schism or intraunion
split, so that the normal bargaining relationship between the Em-
ployer and the heretofore exclusive representative of its employees has
become a matter of confusion, and the relationship between them can
no longer be said to promote stability in industrial relations.3
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
4. In accordance with the agreement of all the parties, we find that
the following employees at the Employer's Lockport, New York, plant,
constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
All production and maintenance employees, excluding office, clerical,
and professional employees, temporary construction employees, sales-
men, sales engineers, sales servicemen, technical drafting room staff,
chemists, laboratory workers and their helpers, guards, executives, and
all other supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
3 Boston Machine Works, 89 NLRB 59; Harrisburg Railway Co ., 94 NLRB 1028.
In view of our finding that the contract is no bar for the reasons set forth above, we
need not pass upon the other contentions raised by the Petitioner at the hearing.
4 With regard to the Employer 's contention that if the Board directs an election, the
winning labor organization should be bound by the current contract between it and the
Intervenor , we reaffirm our position that it is not the Board's function to pass upon this
question in a representation proceeding . Boston Machine Works, supra ; Harrisburg Rail-
way Co ., supra.
0. Z. HALL MOTORS, INC. and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHIN-
ISTS, PETITIONER . Case No. 10-RC-1270. June 13, 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 John S. Patton, 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, an Alabama corporation with a place of business
in Birmingham, Alabama, is engaged in the sale and servicing of
new and used automobiles and trucks, and the sale of parts, tires, and
94 NLRB No. 1&3.