Slater System, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 12, 1951

93 N.L.R.B. 204 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

204 DECISIONS OF, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Petitioner does not wish to participate in an election at this time, it
may withdraw its petition filed in this proceeding upon notice to
that effect given to the Regional Director in writing within ten (10)
days from the date of the Direction of Election.'
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
' Sunshine Broadcasting Company, et al., 83 NLRB 1244.
SLATER SYSTEM, INC. and LOCAL 103, INTERNATIONAL UNION OF
ELECTRICAL, RADIO AND MACHINE WORKERS, CIO, PETITIONER.
Case No. 4-RC-929. February 12, 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 Harold Summers,
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 is 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.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. The Intervenor contends that a current collective bargaining
agreement between it and the Employer is a bar to this proceeding'.
The Petitioner asserts that the contract is not a bar because, inter aria,
a schism in the Intervenor's membership creates a doubt concerning
its continued representation of the Employer's employees. The Em-
ployer is neutral.
The Petitioner's claim of schism is based upon the following facts.
In 1939, the Intervenor was certified as bargaining representative of
the production and maintenance employees of Radio Corporation of
America, at its Camden, New Jersey, plant.' In 1940, the Intervenor
1 For the reasons given in paragraph 3, below, the motion of the Intervenor, United Elec-
trical, Radio and Machine Workers of America and its Local 103, herein called UE, to
dismiss the petition is denied . The Petitioner 's motion to incorporate in this record those
parts of the record in Case No . 5-RC-461 ( Radio Corporation of America ( Victor Divi-
sion )), 89 NLRB 699 , which deal with the attempt of RCA Camden members of the UE
to disaffiliate from the UE is granted.
2 RCA ( Victor Division ), 19 NLRB 24.
93 NLRB No. 28.
SLATER SYSTEM, INC. 205
-was certified' as representative of RCA lunch club employees.' In
1946, RCA employed the Employer herein as an independent con-
tractor to operate its two employee cafeterias, at Camden and Glou-
cester, New Jersey. Since 1946, the Intervenor and the instant Em
ployer have executed separate collective bargaining contracts covering
the cafeteria employees involved herein.
In November 1949, after expulsion of the Intervenor from the Con-
gress of Industrial Organizations, several attempts were made at
Local 103-UE executive board meetings to schedule a general or spe-
cial membership sleeting for discussion and for a vote upon the ques-
tion of disaffiliation from the UE. Despite the fact that a substan-
tial number of officers of Local 103 desired such action, all attempts
were defeated by the Local's president and business agent. Finally,
on December 6, 1949, a meeting of those who wished to disaffiliate was
held, a formal resolution to disaffiliate from the UE and to join the
CIO was unanimously passed, a charter from the CIO was accepted,
and officers were elected. Of the 12 officers of the new IUE-CIO local,
all but 3 were also officers of Local 103-UE.5 The name of the new
local was Local 103, IUE-CIO.
On May 18, 1950, an election was conducted by the Board among
the production and maintenance employees at RCA's Camden plant
to determine whether they desired to be represented by Local 103,
IUE-CIO, the Petitioner herein, or by Local 103-UE. Local 103,
IUE-C10, won the election and was certified as -bargaining repre-
sentative.
So far as the record shows, the certification of the Petitioner left
the cafeteria employees involved herein as the only bargaining unit
at the Camden plant represented by the Intervenor. When, in Au-
gust 1950, the cafeteria employees learned the results of the election
among the RCA employees, a substantial number of them signed
membership cards for Local 103, IUE-CIO, by then the exclusive
bargaining agent for the employees of RCA at its Camden plant. On
September 26, 1950, Local 103, IUE-CIO, the Petitioner herein, filed
its petition with the Board. Later, on November 2, 1950, a special
meeting of cafeteria employees was called by the Petitioner at which
was ratified, by unanimous vote, the resolution of disaffiliation from
UE which had been adopted at the meeting of December 6, 1949,
described above.e
3 RCA (Victor Dir,i.sioa), 21 NLRB 1081
This is the same unit as the unit of cafeteua employees involved herein.
The nine officers of the new Local 103, IUE-CTO continued as officers of Local 103-UE,
and resisted atteni is made by the Ulf; faction to expel them.
FA few of the cateteria employees had attended the December 6, 1949. meeting and
participated in the vote to disaffiliate from UE
206 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
As a result of the intraunion split revealed by the record in this case,
the IUE and the UE challenge, with some show of right, each other's
claim to representative status. In these circumstances, as in other
cases arising out of the expulsion of the UE from the CIO, it is clear
that the normal bargaining relationship between the Employer and
the original contracting union has become a matter of confusion. The
relationship between them can no longer be said to promote stability
in labor relations. To treat the contract as a bar to a present deter-
mination of representatives would seriously impede, rather than
encourage, the practice of collective bargaining that the Act was
designed to foster and protect. We therefore believe that the con-
flicting claims to representation of the two labor organizations in-
volved can best be resolved by an election.
We find, therefore, that the existing contract is not a bar to a present
determination of representatives.'
We find that 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 at the RCA plants at
Camden and Gloucester, New Jersey, constitute a unit appropriate for
the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section
9 (b) of the Act :
All hourly paid employees, excluding executives, administrators,
and supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
7 Radionic Products Division, Radionic Controls , Inc, 91 NLRB 595 ; Air Reduction
Sales Company of Air Reduction Company , Inc., 89 NLRB 1486 , white Seeing Machine
Company , 89 NLRB 1284 ; Airtemp Division, Chrysler Corporation, 89 NLRB 448
DAVIS MOTORS, INC. and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS,
DISTRICT LODGE No. 86. Case No. 30-CA-123. February 13, 1951
Decision and Order
On December 28,1950, Trial Examiner James B. Hemingway issued
his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding
that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain
unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist
therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy
of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter the Re-
93 NLRB No. 30.