Allied Container Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 12, 1952

98 N.L.R.B. 580 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

580 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
10. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2 ( 6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication in this volume.]
ALLIED CONTAINER CORPORATION and UNITED PAPERWORKERS OF AMER-
ICA, CIO., PETITIONER . Case No. 1-RC-2497. March 12, 1952
Decision and Order
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Lee J. Halloran, hear-
ing 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 power 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 is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent employees of
the Employer.
3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion 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 Employer and the Intervenor, Local 13521, District 50, United
Mine Workers of America; assert that a collective bargaining contract
which they signed on July 28, 1950, effective to July 31, 1952, is a bar
to this proceeding. The Petitioner contends that the contract is not
a bar because of (a) a schism within the contracting union, and (b)
the defunctness of that union.
Following the Intervenor's winning of a State-conducted election
among the Employer's production and maintenance employees, the
Employer and the Intervenor entered into the contract asserted to be
a bar. In July 1951 the contracting parties signed a supplement
granting a wage increase subject to approval of the Wage Stabilization
Board.
On October 13, 1951, the members present at a regular meeting
of the Intervenor, attended by approximately one-half of the total
membership, voted unanimously to disaffiliate from the Intervenor
and affiliate with the Petitioner.' All officers of the Intervenor joined
in the disaffiliation movement. International representatives of Dis-
' A posted announcement of the meeting did not state that one of its purposes was to
vote on a change of affiliation . However , word that such action would be taken at the
meeting was spread by word of mouth
98 NLRB No. 90.
ALLIED CONTAINER CORPORATION 581
trict 50 have nevertheless processed the application for a-wage increase
through the Wage Stabilization Board, and continued to attend
weekly 'grievance meetings' with the' Employer and even to be present
at regular monthly meetings of the new group, until ordered out at
the January 1952 meeting.
The contract bar rule sets forth that the Board will not entertain
a rival petition for the conduct of a representation election in midterm
of a valid subsisting bargaining contract of reasonable duration.
The rule represents a compromise between the desirability of per-
mitting employees to change their bargaining representatives at will
and the stability which is necessary for the effective conduct of labor
relations.
But if the rule is to serve its purpose, care must be taken that
in providing for necessary exceptions, the rule itself is not left
an empty sieve. In a very recent case,2 the Board expressed its
fear that the rule was being undermined by too broad an application
of the so-called schism exception. The Board there indicated that
henceforward it would not permit the schism doctrine to be used to
facilitate raiding by a rival union.
Examining the facts of the present case, we find merely a situation
in which some employees, dissatisfied -%^ith their representation, desire
to make a change at a time generally considered inappropriate by the
Board. The fact that they have expressed that dissatisfaction in
formalized, action, is not by itself sufficient reason for making an
exception to the normal contract bar rule.
The Petitioner also contends that the Intervenor is defunct. This
the Intervenor denies. Since the dissaffiliation action, representatives
of the Intervenor have processed the application for a wage increase
through the Wage Stabilization Board and have been present at, and
participated in, weekly grievance meetings with the Employer. The
Intervenor's charter has not been returned to District 50 and the
dissident group has drawn on the checking account in the Intervenor's
name to pay meeting hall rental charges. Finally, not all the Inter-
venor's members at the time of the disaffiliation action have withdrawn
and joined the Petitioner. On these facts, we are not satisfied that
the Intervenor is defunct.
As the existing contract will not expire until July 31, 1952, we find
that it is a bar to the present petition. We shall therefore dismiss
it, without prejudice to a timely refiling.
Order
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition filed herein be, and it hereby
is, dismissed.
2 Saginaw Furniture Shops, Inc, 97 NLRB 1488
998666-vol 98-53--38