The Linde Air Products Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 15, 1954

107 N.L.R.B. 1148 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

1 148 DECISONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
off employees have a reasonable expectancy of employment in
the near future so as to render them eligible to vote. Under
these circumstances, we shall permit them to vote subject to
challenge.T
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
7 See Young Manufacturing Company, 92 NLRB 410.
THE LINDE AIR PRODUCTS COMPANY, A DIVISION OF
UNION CARBIDE AND CARBON CORPORATION, APPA-
RATUS PLANT NO. 1' and INTERNATIONAL UNION,
UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT AND AGRICULTURAL
IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, Petitioner.
Case No. 4-RC-2205. February 15, 1954
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Herbert B.
Mintz, hearing officer . The hearing officer ' s rulings made at
the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby
affirmed.
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 cer-
tain employees of the Employer.
3. 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 Linde Apparatus Division, Plant No. 1 Employees' Asso-
ciation, the Intervenor herein, and the Employer urge as a bar
to this proceeding their current contract executed September 4,
1952, which expires September 4, 1954 . In support of its posi-
tion that the contract is not a bar, the Petitioner contends that
a schism has occurred in the ranks of the Intervenor thus
causing genuine confusion as to the proper bargaining repre-
sentatives. The Petitioner further urges that the Intervenor 2 is
now defunct and cannot administer-the contract.
The evidence shows that on or about October 12, 1953,
employee Scardena, who headed a group of dissidents dissatis-
fied with the Intervenor, contacted a representative of the Peti-
tioner for the purpose of learning what procedure must be
'The name of the Employer appears herein as amended at the hearing.
2 The Intervenor, an independent union, was certified by the Board m 1949 and has had
contractual relations with the Employer since that date.
107 NLRB No. 246.
THE LINDE AIR PRODUCTS COMPANY 1 149
followed for affiliation with the Petitioner. Scardena was told
that before anything could be done, there must be a schism in
the ranks of the Intervenor.
On October 13, 1953, at a meeting of the Intervenor, for which
no notice indicating its special purpose was posted or other
notice provided except by word of mouth, it was moved and
seconded that the Intervenor affiliate with Petitioner. Shortly
thereafter, following a call. from Scardena to the Petitioner's
office, three representatives of the Petitioner appeared at the
meeting and addressed the group.
On October 27, 1953, coincidental with the resignations of the
officers of the Intervenor, a meeting was called and a Scardena
slate of officers was elected. However, opposition to this action
soon developed. As a result thereof, on November 10, 1953, at
a meeting of the Intervenor called by the anti-Scardena group,
the procedure used at the October 13 meeting was the subject
of adverse criticism. Accordingly, a new slate of officers for
the Intervenor was proposed and the Scardena slate was
repudiated. The final action in the contest for control of the
Intervenor occurred at a meeting held on December 8, 1953.
At this meeting, the election of officers brought victory to the
anti-Scardena slate, a group, which has since then managed the
affairs of the Intervenor.
So far as the present status of the Intervenor is concerned,
it appears that, although the Intervenor was rendered tempo-
rarily ineffective following the resignation of its officers, the
Intervenor has maintained or regained most of its old member-
ship, 3 and is continuing to administer the contract with the
Employer by which it is still recognized as bargaining repre-
sentative.
As bearing on the issue of schism, the facts set forth above
establish that the meeting of October 13, upon which the claim
of schism is founded, was not called or announced as an affilia-
tion meeting; nor was it called for the purpose of considering
any affiliation move. We find, therefore, that, notwithstanding
the giving of informal notice by word of mouth, this meeting
and the procedure based thereon did not comply with the
requirements of formalized action which the Board has held to
be a prerequisite of a true schism.4 Moreover, it appears that
Petitioner's control over the affiliation proceedings were of
such nature as to preclude the application of the schism
doctrine. 5 Finally, it may be noted that the Intervenor's present
activity in administering its contract with the Employer together
with the other factors which have been mentioned negative any
inference that the Intervenor has become a defunct labor organi-
zation. 6
3The record discloses no revocation of authorization to checkoff dues to the Intervenor.
4 The Budd Company, 107 NLRB 116.
5 Federal Paper Stock Company, 105 NLRB 574.
6Marshall Field & Company, 101 NLRB 512.
337593 0 - 55 - 74
1150 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Under the circumstances, we find that there is no confusion
as to the identity of the bargaining representative recognized
by the Employer. There being no schism or other basis for
avoiding the normal consequences of an existing contract, we
find that the current contract is a bar to an election at the
present time. We shall, accordingly, dismiss the petition.
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
Member Rodgers took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Order.
UNITED TRANSPORTS, INC. and AUTOMOBILE TRANSPORT
CHAUFFEURS, DEMONSTRATORS AND HELPERS, LOCAL
604, affiliated with the INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD
OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND
HELPERS OF AMERICA, AFL. Case No. 14-RC-2033.
February 15, 1954
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION, ORDER,
AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
On November 19, 1952, the Board issued a Decision and
Direction of Election t designating the following group of
employees as a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining : "all dispatchers and the loading supervisor en-
gaged in the transportation of automobiles at the Employer's
St. Louis, Missouri, terminal. . . ... Pursuant thereto, an elec-
tion among these individuals was conducted on December 18,
1952. During the course of the election, all of the six ballots
cast were challenged by the Employer's observer.
On January 16, 1953, the Regional Director issued a report
on challenged ballots, finding that the voters were nonsuper-
visory on the eligibility date, and therefore recommending
that the challenges be overruled. Thereafter, the Employer
timely filed exceptions to that report. On February 12, 1953,
the Board ordered that a hearing be held on the issues raised
by the challenged ballots. Subsequent to a hearing on Ap: it 1
and 2, 1953, the hearing officer concurred in the Regional
Director's finding and recommendation.' The Employer again
filed exceptions . Upon consideration of the record made at the
hearing on challenges, the Board, on July 27, 1953, stated that:
The evidence adduced at the hearing has convinced [us]
that, subsequent to the election, the dispatchers have
iNot reported in printed volumes of Board decisions.
? The hearing officer's rulings made at that hearing are free from prejudicial error and
are hereby affirmed.
107 NLRB No. 245.