Knife River Coal Mining Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 11, 1950

91 N.L.R.B. 176 (N.L.R.B. 1950)

In the Matter of KNIFE RIVER COAL MINING COMPANY, EMPLOYER and
ALBIN BECKER, PETITIONER and LOCAL #1101, PROGRESSIVE MINE
WORKERS OF AMERICA, UNION
Case No. 18-RD-37.-Decided September 11, 1950
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition for decertification duly filed, a hearing was held in
this case on May 9, 1950 , at Beulah , North ' Dakota, before Jerome K.
Wilkins, 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 Petitioner , an employee of the Employer, asserts that the
Union is no longer the representative , as defined in Section 9 (a) of
the Act, of the employees designated in the petition.
The Union is a labor organization recognized by the Employer as
the exclusive bargaining representative of employees of the Em-
ployer.
3. The Union contends that this proceeding should be dismissed
upon the ground that the Petitioner, Albin Becker, is in fact acting
as a "front" for the United Mine Workers of America , hereinafter
referred to as the UMW, a labor organization not in compliance with
the filing requirements of the Act. We find merit in this contention.
The credible testimony in the record discloses that about the year 1947,
Becker, who was then a member of the Union, joined the UMW and is
presently a member of that organization; that in January 1950 a
meeting of the UMW was held at which one Miller, a UMW organizer,
made the principal speech indicating that it would be a good idea to
decertify the Union; that Miller produced a blank form petition at
this meeting which he had Becker sign ; that Becker signed the blank
petition on the wrong line and Miller sometime thereafter brought it
to Becker 's home where the latter again signed it; that Becker did not
know what was thereafter typed or written in the blank spaces of the
petition; that Becker intended by the petition to have the UMW
represent the workers and to have them participate in the UMW wel-
91 NLRB No. 23.
176
KNIFE RIVER COAL MINCING COMPANY 177
fare fund ; that on the day of hearing Becker was informed by one
Masini, another UMW organizer, that an attorney was coming to
represent him; that Becker himself did not decide he needed counsel,
did not ask the lawyer to represent him, did not know him or how he
was going to be paid, and did not intend to pay for his services; and,
that on at least two occasions Becker was absent from the hearing
solely because UMM'IW Organizer Masini told him not to appear as the
hearing had been postponed when in fact it had not.
Section 9 (f) and (h) of the Act provides that the Board shall not
conduct an investigation of any question concerning representation
raised by a labor organization unless that labor organization has met
the statutory registration and filing requirements. In our opinion it
is clear that Albin Becker is acting on behalf of the UMW. Thus, the
question concerning representation has been raised, in fact although
not in form, by a noncomplying labor organization. Clearly, if the
noncomplying UMW had filed this decertification in its own name, we
would have dismissed the petition, because Section 9 (f) and (h)
would prevent the Board from proceeding with the investigation.
We can perceive of no valid reason for coming to a. different result
because this labor organization, which is the real party in interest,
utilized the indirect method of having an individual file the petition
in its behalf.' Accordingly, we shall dismiss the petition herein 2
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition herein be, and it hereby is
dismissed.
' Similarly , in certification proceedings the Board has uniformly dismissed petitions or
refused to permit intervention where the individuals or labor organizations involved were
"fronting" for noncomplying unions. See for example R . J. Reynolds Tobacco Company,
83 NLRB 348 , and Campbell Soup Company , 76 NLRB 950.
2 Insofar as Radix Wire Company , 86 NLRB 105 and Auburn Rubber Corporation, 85
NLRB 545 and cases cited therein are inconsistent herewith , they are overruled.