Gardner-Denver Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 21, 1951

97 N.L.R.B. 77 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

GARDNER-DENVER COMPANY 77
GARDNER-DENVER COMPANY and UNITED STEEL WORKERS OF AMERICA,
CIO, PETITIONER. Case No. 30-RC-630. November 21, 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 Clyde F. Waers, 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, 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 organization involved claims to represent employees
of the Employer.
3. Pursuant to a Board-directed election,' the Board, on May 11,
1949, certified Office Employees International Union, Local No. 5,
AFL, hereinafter referred to as Local No. 5, as the exclusive bargain-
ing representative of the employees on the office payroll of the Em-
ployer's Denver, Colorado, plant. Thereafter, on August 1, 1949, the
Employer and Local No. 5 entered into a collective bargaining agree-
ment which was to remain in effect until August 1, 1950, and thereafter
from year to year unless terminated by notice not less than 60 or more
than 75 days before the end of any yearly period.
On June 30, 1951, the Petitioner advised the Employer by letter
that it represented a majority of the employees on the office payroll
and that it was therefore requesting recognition as the bargaining
representative of these employees. On the same day, the Petitioner
filed the instant petition.
The Employer contends that its contract with Local No. 5 is a bar
to this proceeding. The Petitioner, on the other hand, takes the posi-
tion that the contract is not effective as a bar to this proceeding because
Local No. 5 has renounced its interest in the employees covered by the
contract.
The record shows that for several months after the 1949 contract
was executed, it was administered by a committee of employees repre-
senting Local No. 5 which met with the Employer about once a month.
However, only three such meetings have been held since the fall
of 1950.2 During the first year of the contract two officials of Local
1'82 NLRB 201.
' The record shows that the committee recently obtained wage increases as well as certain
other benefits for the employees.
97 NLRB No, 17.
78 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
No. 5 personally communicated with the Employer from time to time.
In the past year, however, no official of Local No. 5 has contacted the
Employer or attempted in any way to represent the employees here
involved in their dealings with the Employer. Moreover, on July
31, 1951, Local No. 5 wrote the Employer the following letter :
For the past several weeks, we have been in the process of deter-
mining our interest and responsibility among the office and tech-
nical employees at your Company regarding representation of
that group under (the) existing contract between your Company
and Local No. 5. . . .
We have determined from our members, former members and
potential members that, even though some employees eligible, to
vote in such an election would probably vote for Local No. 5, we
do not consider ourselves to have an effective bargaining or repre-
sentation unit at this time. Accordingly, we feel that we have
no responsibility to pursue this matter further and are withdraw-
ing our interest, officially, this date. This will permit your Com-
pany, and USA, CIO, to proceed with the NLRB to hold the
necessary certification election.
A copy of this letter was forwarded to the Petitioner with the
following note :
We expect you fellows to win this election and do a job for these
people. If you don't, we will as long as I have anything to do for
Local 5. We could represent them now-but we aren't going to
stand in the way of organization work another union has already
done so good luck.
Although served with written notice, Local No. 5 did not appear at
the hearing.
From the foregoing, it is clear that Local No. 5 has abandoned the
administration of its contract with the Employer and, in fact, has
advised the Employer in writing that it no longer claims to represent
the employees in question. Under these circumstances, we find that
the contract is not a bar to an election at this time.
A 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.
4. The following employees of the Employer constitute a unit
appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning
of Section 9 (b) of the Act: All employees on the office payroll of the
8 Cf. Reynolds & Manley Lumber Company, 88 NLRB 1300; Armour and Company,, 95
NLRB 956. For the reasons stated in Boston Machine Works Company, 89 NLRB 59, we
find it unnecessary to pass on the Employer's contention that the Petitioner, if chosen as
the collective bargaining representative, should be bound by the contract of Local No. 5.
SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE' COMPANY 79
Employer at its Denver, Colorado, plant, excluding all production
and maintenance employees, plant clericals, assistants to the personnel
director, confidential secretaries, time-study engineers, rate setters,
routing engineers, the manager of the employees' credit union, tech-
nical employees, department heads, and all other supervisors as defined
in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY and CLAUDE JULYAN
SOUTHWESTERN DIVISION No. 20, COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS OF
AMERICA, CIO and CLAUDE JULYAN. Cases Nos. 14-CA-550 and
141.-CB-110. November 203, 1951
Decision and Order
On July 30,1951, Trial Examiner James R. Hemingway issued his
intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that they cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Interme-
diate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondents filed
exceptions to the Intermediate Report and supporting briefs.
The Board 1 has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Interme-
diate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in the
case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner, with the modifications and exceptions
noted below.
We agree with the Trial Examiner that the Respondent Company,
at the instance of the Respondent Union, discriminatorily refused to
permit employee Julyan to trade his work tour assignment because he
was not a member of the Respondent Union, and thereby violated Sec-
tion 8 (a) (3) and (1) of the Act. We also agree with the Trial Ex-
aminer that the Respondent Union, in violation of Section 8 (b) (2)
and (1) (A) of the Act, attempted to, and did, cause the Respondent
Company to discriminate in this manner against Julyan.2 In reach-
1 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the
hoard has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three -member panel
[ Members Houston, Reynolds , and Styles].
2 We not only agree with the Trial Examiner that the terms of the contract did not justify
the discrimination in question, but find , in addition , that E ven if the contract authorized such
discrimination , it would not be lawful or enforceable Rockaway News Supply Company,
lne, 94 NLRB 1056, and cases there cited.
97 NLRB No. 19.