A. C. Lawrence Leather Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 23, 1954

108 N.L.R.B. 546 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

546 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
apprenticeships ; 1, a former guard who took GI adult education
training , was given a tool and die classification after a pro-
bation tryout period ; and another , a production worker, with 9
months trade schooling and a short apprenticeship , was pro-
moted to the classification . Because trained tool and die makers
are not available , the Employer hires applicants for work on
the basis of their varied apprenticeship training and prior
experience in machine shops and on machine repair and after
they have satisfied the toolroom foreman that they can do the
type of tool and die work needed by the Employer at this plant.
While it is generally true that 1 or more of the 6 most skilled
tool and die makers at the plant could perform the precision
work usually associated with their trade name , the Employer
does not have enough of such work to supply them with work on
any full -time basis . Further , the urgent need to get and keep
production machines in operation to meet time schedules re-
quires a constant overlapping of assignments between general
maintainers and tool and die makers , depending on the skills
and availability of men when needed , so that tool and die makers
are called upon to do work requiring lesser skills. It seems
clear , therefore , ( 1) that the employees classified as tool and
die makers whom the Petitioner would sever as a craft unit do
not have the high degree of skills associated with this craft,
and (2 ) that the work available at the plant is not such as to
require a high degree of skill or furnish opportunities for the
exercise of tool and die precision on any substantial or broad
craft basis . Under these circumstances , and in accord with our
recently declared policy,P we dismiss the petition , finding that
the proposed unit for the Employer ' s tool and die makers is not
appropriate for severance at this time.4
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
3 American Potash & Chemical Corporation, 107 NLRB 1418.
4 The fact that the Employer anticipates possible changes in the number and work of its
tool and die makers at the termination of its present contract obligations does not bear upon
the determination of the unit appropriate for these employees at this time.
A. C. LAWRENCE LEATHER COMPANY and CONGRESS OF
INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS, Petitioner. Case No. 9-RC-
2086. April 23, 1954
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 Richard C.
Curry, hearing officer . The hearing officer's rulings made at
the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby
affirmed.
108 NLRB No. 88.
A. C. LAWRENCE LEATHER COMPANY 547
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the mean-
ing of the Act.
2. The Petitioner and the Intervenor, International Fur and
Leather Workers Union of the United States and Canada and its
Local No. 310, herein also called IFLWU, are labor organiza-
tions claiming to represent certain employees of the Employer.
3. The Intervenor contends that its existing contract con-
stitutes a bar to this proceeding. The contract, entered into
June 25, 1952, is effective from July 13, 1952, to July 13, 1954,
and contains a 60-day automatic renewal clause. The contract
covers substantially the unit requested by the Petitioner. The
Petitioner contends that because of a schism inthe Intervenor,
the contract is not a bar. The Employer is neutral with respect
to this issue.
The Employer's employees have been organized over 10
years. In 1943, the Board certified CIO Local Industrial Union
1298 as their bargaining agent. Representation of the employees
was thereafter turned over to the International Fur and Leather
Workers Union, affiliated with the CIO, and the employees were
set up as Local No. 310, IFLWU.
In 1949 the eleventh constitutional convention of the CIO added
a new provision to the CIO constitution empowering the executive
board to expel any union "the policies and activities of which
are consistently directed toward the achievement of the pro-
gram or the purposes of the Communist Party, any fascist
organization, or other totalitarian movement, rather than the
objectives and policies set forth in the Constitution of the CIO."'
Pursuant to this provision charges were filed with the execu-
tive board against several unions, including the IFLWU; and
the executive board made provision for notice and hearings on
the charges. About May 22, 1950, the IFLWU resigned from the
CIO. On June 15, 1950, the executive board adopted a resolu-
tion expelling the IFLWU and canceling the certificate of
affiliation previously granted that Union. The twelfth constitu-
tional convention of the CIO in November 1950 approved the
action of the executive board.'
Approximately 110 of the Employer's 129 employees were
members of Local 310, IFLWU, which held meetings each
month. At the regular monthly meeting of the Local on August
25, 1953, the members present voted unanimously to di s affiliate
from IFLWU, and to withdraw the Local's funds on deposit at
the bank and redeposit them to the personal joint account of
Local 310's president and secretary-treasurer until the Local
had been accepted by another union. The membership had been
given no advance notice that such action would be considered
IProceedings 1949, Eleventh Constitutional Convention, Congress of Industrial Organiza-
tions, p. 288.
2 Proceedings 1950, Twelfth Constitutional Convention, Congress of Industrial Organizations.
p. 477.
548 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
at its regular meeting , but more than the average number of
members in attendance at regular meetings was present. Two
days later , a special meeting was held for the announced pur-
pose of reviewing the disaffiliation action taken by the Local.
Again, the vote was unanimous to disaffiliate and discontinue
payment of dues to the IFLWU . On this occasion an even larger
number of members was present.
The reason for the disaffiliation action was described by an
officer of the Local as follows : " The reason we decided to dis -
affiliate with the International Fur & Leather Workers was
because Ben Gold [president of IFLWU], in 1950 , claimed he
resigned from the Communist Party, and our Justice Depart-
ment claimed he hadn ' t by arresting Ben Gold . And that was
one reason . The second reason, we have no representation
from the International Fur & Leather Workers Union." On
September 8 a meeting was held at which the director of dis-
trict 5, IFLWU, urged the members not to leave the IFLWU.
According to the same local officer , this meeting was held
because the district director "wanted to explain to the men
why Ben Gold was arrested ." At the meeting questions and
remarks were made by one employee concerning Communist
domination of the IFLWU.
Thereafter , other special and regular meetings were held by
the Local which at that time apparently considered itself no
longer affiliated with the IFLWU . At one meeting the members
voted to affiliate with the United Shoe Workers, CIO, and to
retain, temporarily , the officers which had been elected when
Local 310 was affiliated with IFLWU . At a later meeting, the
members voted to affiliate with the National CIO rather than
the Shoe Workers.
On October 7, 1953, the Petitioner notified the Employer that
it represented the Employer ' s production and maintenance unit
and wished to bargain . It stated that this request to bargain
superceded all previous requests of any CIO affiliate. The
Employer replied that it had an existing contract with Local
310, IFLWU , and declined to recognize the Petitioner because
it did not in fact know that the Petitioner represented a majority
of employees in the aforesaid unit.
Later in the month , the District director of IFLWU removed
the duly erected officers of IFLWU, Local 310, and so advised
the Employer . Subsequently , he sent a list of the newly appointed
officers and stewards of IFLWU's Local 310 to the Employer.
The Employer stated at the hearing that it continues to
recognize Local 310 , IFLWU , " bargaining with the officers
duly elected in the last election ." The persons originally
elected officers of Local 310, IFLWU , however , are now tem-
porary officers of the group affiliated with the Petitioner. There
has, in fact , been no bargaining since August 25 , 1953, and no
grievance has been processed since that time. The Employer is
holding all monies obtained by checkoff in escrow.
A. C. LAWRENCE LEATHER COMPANY 549
The Board ordinarily does not find that a question concerning
representation exists when a collective - bargaining contract is
in effect . When, however, the Board finds a schism in the con-
tracting union, it will , as an exception to its contract - bar rule,
direct an immediate election to determine the bargaining agent. 9
In this case , the Boardhas examined the facts presented and has
reviewed its schism doctrine . The Board concludes that expul-
sion of a labor union by its parent organization coupled with
disaffiliation action at the local level for reasons related to the
expulsion , disrupts any established bargaining relationship
between an employer and that union and creates such confusion
that the existing contract with such union no longer stabilizes
industrial relations between the employer and its employees.
The circumstances of this case demonstrate such confusion.
Where, therefore , a local group disaffiliates from a union ex-
pelled by its parent for reasons related to the expulsion, as in
this case , the Board will find that a schism exists which war-
rants directing an immediate election notwithstanding the exist-
ence of a contract with the union suffering the schism which
would otherwise bar a determination of representative . Accord-
ingly , we find that the contract between the Employer and the
Intervenor does not bar this proceeding.4
We find that a question affecting commerce exists concerning
the representation of employees of the Employer within the
meaning of Section 9 ( c) and Section 2 ( 6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The parties tookno position as to whether or not watchmen
should be included in the unit . As they perform guard duties,
we find that they are guards and shall exclude them from the
unit hereafter found appropriate.
The following employees of the Employer constitute a unit
appropriate for the purposes of collective -bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act: All production and mainte-
nance employees, including firemen and engineers at the Em-
ployer ' s Ashland , Kentucky , plant , but excluding office em-
ployees, checkers , guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
3 See Boston Machine Works Company, 89 NLRB 59; cf. Saginaw Furniture Shops, Inc., 97
NLRB 1488; Allied Container Corp., 98 NLRB 580; Mission Appliance Corporation, 104 NLRB
577.
4Board Member Rodgers concurs in the conclusion that the Intervenor's contract should not
be considered a bar to these proceedings. He does not agree with the majority, however, that
this is necessarily true for the reason stated. Instead, he would refuse to recognize the Inter-
venor's contract for reasons of broad public policy: The Intervenor has failed to comply with
the requirements of Section 9 (h) of the Act by filing non-Communist affidavits of its officers,
its parent international, the IFLWU. has previously been expelled from the Congress of In-
dustrial Organizations because of Communist domination, and its International president, Ben
Gold, has but recently been found guilty of filing a false affidavit under Section 9 (h) of the Act,
on the basis of which this Board has taken steps to withhold from the International further bene-
fits under the Act. Under these circumstances the availability of the Board's processes to the
Intervenor would not, in Member Rodgers' opinion, effectuate the policies of the Act (cf. New
York Shipping Association 108 NLRB 135) nor properly serve the interests of national se-
curity.
550 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
5. It appears that District 5, IFLWU, has participated in bar -
gaining for the employees involved. In the case of Safrit Lumber
Co., 108 NLRB 550, the Board has found that District 5 is a
labor organization which is required to comply with the filing
requirements of Section 9 (f), (g), and (h) of the Act. The In-
tervenor's placement on the ballot is conditioned upon District
5 IFLWU as well as Local 310 IFLWU and IFLWU being in
compliance with the filing requirements of the Act. If any one
of these organizations fails to meet the requirements, the
Intervenor's name will not appear on the ballot.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
Member, Peterson, concurring:
I think it is unnecessary to apply the schism doctrine in this
case. It appears to me somewhat strained to hold that the 1950
expulsion of the Intervenor by the CIO bears a causal relation-
ship to the disaffiliation action of the employees in 1953. In this
connection, I note that the employees in 1952 were agreeable
to having the Intervenor continue as their bargaining repre-
sentative as evidenced by the current contract negotiated in their
behalf. Doubtless the indictment of Ben Gold, the Intervenor's
international president, was the proximate cause of the dis-
affiliation movement. But I question whether that brings the
case within the Board's schism doctrine.
However, I concur in the result reached by my colleagues
because the contract asserted as a bar is about to expire. The
effective date of the automatic renewal clause is less than 30
days away, and the termination date is July 13, 1954.
SAFRIT LUMBER COMPANY, INC. and INTERNATIONAL FUR
& LEATHER WORKERS UNION OF THE U. S. AND CANADA,
Petitioner. Case No. 11-RC-583. April 23, 1954
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 Lewis Wolberg,
a 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 mean-
ing of the Act.
IChairman Farmer and Member Rodgers concur in the asserting of jurisdiction in this
case, but are not to be deemed thereby as agreeing with the Board's past jurisdictional
standards as a permanent policy.
In asserting jurisdiction Member Murdock and Peterson rely on Stanislaus Implement
and Hardware Company, Ltd., 91 NLRB 618.
108 NLRB No. 42.