Marshall Field & Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 21, 1952

101 N.L.R.B. 512 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

.512 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Live, unquestionably tended to disrupt, and did disrupt, the harmonious rela-
tionship existing between the Molders and the Company and to prevent the
orderly administration of a valid collective bargaining agreement . Conduct of
this character is in plain controvension of the expressed purposes of the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case,
the undersigned makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The operations of Crucible Steel Castings Company, at its plant located at
'Cleveland , Ohio, occur in commerce , within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and
(7) of the Act.
2. International Molders and Foundry Workers Union of North America,
Local 218, AFL, and Metal & Machinery Workers of America , Independent, are
labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
3. The Respondent , Crucible Steel Castings Company , has not engaged in
unfair labor practices as alleged in the complaint , within the meaning of Sec-
tion 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication in this volume.]
MARSHALL FIELD & COMPANY 1 and UNITED TEXTILE WORKERS OF
AMERICA , AFL, PETITIONER . Cases Nos. 11-RC-417, 11-RC-418,
11-RC-421, 11-RC-122, 11-RC-423, and 11-EC-429 (formerly
Cases of the 34th Subregional office ). November 21,195R
Decision and Order
Upon petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a consolidated hearing 2 was held before Martin L.
Ball, Jr., 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 employees
of the Employer.3
3. The Employer and the Intervenor are parties to collective bar-
gaining contracts covering the employees whose representation is
sought here. These contracts do not expire until May 1, 1953, and
their existence is urged by the Intervenor as a bar to the petitions
filed herein.
1 The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing.
3 These cases were consolidated by order of the hearing officer at the hearing over the
objection of counsel for the Textile Workers Union of America , CIO, herein termed the
Intervenor . We hereby affirm the action of the hearing officer inasmuch as the issues,
parties, and , to a great extent, the factual situation involved in each of the cases are
identical.
3 The Intervenor was granted intervention at the hearing without objection.
101 NLRB No. 97.
MARSHALL FIELD & COMPANY 513
The Petitioner contends that a schism has taken place within the
ranks of the Intervenor making the identity of the representative
doubtful and preventing the contracs from being bars. The Employer
takes no position on the issue.
The Intervenor's predecessor organization, the Textile Workers
Organizing Committee, CIO, was certified in 1939 and thereafter
acted as the collective bargaining representative of the Employer's
eight textile mills located in Leaksville, Draper, and Spray, North
Carolina. Since that time, the Intervenor and the Employer have
executed separate but identical contracts for the individual mills.4
Four locals of the Intervenor were established to service the mills
under the general administration of the Intervenor's Bi-County
Joint Board. Local 294 consists of white employees at the Employer's
Karastan rug mill and bed spread mill; Local 317 of white employees
at the sheeting mill and blanket mill; Local 385 of white employees
at the finishing mill, rayon mill, bleachery mill, central warehouse
supply, and electric blanket division; and Local 304 consists of Negro
employees at all the mills. Each of the contracts names Local 304 as
well as one of the other locals as a party to the contract along with the
Intervenor and the Joint Board.
Following the Intervenor's national convention held in April and
early May 1952, the delegates sent by the locals returned and reported
to their respective memberships. On May 17, Local 317 held a meet-
ing at which a resolution was adopted stating that the local dis-
affiliated from the Intervenor and desired to affiliate with the Peti-
tioner. The meeting was announced by notices stating that the ques-
tion of continued affiliation with the Intervenor would be discussed,
was presided over by the local's regular officer, and was attended by
about five times the normal attendance. On May 20 and 24, Locals 385
and 294, respectively, met under similar circumstances and also
passed resolutions disaffiliating from the Intervenor and seeking
affiliation with the Petitioner. On May 25 a mass meeting was held
of the Joint Board, which had also passed a disaffiliation resolution
on May 17, and its constituent locals at which a further motion for
disaffiliation was adopted .5 At or about the same time, however,
Local 304 voted to remain in the Intervenor and to reject any dis-
affiliation move.
On May 15, prior to these disaffiliation meetings, the Intervenor
appointed an administrator to take over the control and direction of
* The electric blanket division is included under the coverage of the finishing mill
contract.
"The Joint Board includes 4 other locals in the same area representing employees of
other than the Employer. Conflicting evidence was presented at the hearing as to whether
these locals have also passed disaffiliation resolutions . The May 25 mass meeting voted
on the resolution as a body and no individual local votes were recorded on that occasion.
514 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the Bi-County Joint Board and its affiliated locals and to exercise
the powers and authority of the officers of these organizations. Since
the disaffiliation meetings, each of the Intervenor's locals has met
regularly under substantially new leadership e The Employer has
been notified by the Petitioner of the disaffiliation attempts but has
declined to recognize that organization in the face of the existing
contracts. The record shows that some grievances, at least, have been
processed by the Intervenor's local organizations since the disaffilia-
tion attempts, while the Petitioner has been unable to perform this
function. The Petitioner has not established a local as a counterpart
to the Intervenor's Local 304.
As noted previously, the Intervenor contends that its contracts bar
these proceedings and moves to dismiss the petitions on that ground.
The Petitioner asserts that the disaffiliation movement prevents these
agreements from constituting bars. On the entire record, we find
merit in the contention of the Intervenor and we shall grant its motion
to dismiss the petitions. The contract bar rule, which this Board has
consistently enforced, provides that a petition for investigation and
certification of representatives will not be entertained, absent unusual
circumstances, where a valid collective bargaining contract of reason-
able duration exists and is not nearing the close of its term. An ex-
ception to this rule exists where a schism in the ranks of the contract-
ing union occurs which results in either or both a defunct organization
and the creation of confusion in the bargaining relationship.? The
Board has, however, established certain requirements which must be
met in these schism situations to prevent the use of the rule by dis-
sident minorities to overthrow a valid contract in mid-term. One of
these requirements is that the schism must be at least coextensive with
the contractual Board-certified unit.a
In the instant factual situation, it is clear that the schism which
occurred in May of this year was restricted to only a portion of the
membership represented by the Intervenor at the Employer's plants.
One local, Local 304, which is a party to each of the contracts and had
members at each of the plants at the time of the disaffiliation move,
has not participated in the schism attempt and the Petitioner made no
claim to having gained its allegiance. Moreover, far from being de-
funct, the Intervenor retains an active membership in each of its locals
and has proceeded to continue its administration of the contracts with
the Employer. The Employer, itself, has apparently experienced no
'Most of the officers of the locals which participated in the disaffiliation actions now
occupy the same positions in the Petitioner' s locals. The president of Local 385, however,
is still active in that post under the Intervenor.
° See Wade Manufacturing Company, 100 NLRB 1135; Boston Machine Works Com-
pany, 89 NLRB 59: and cases cited therein.
8 See Harris Products Company, 96 NLRB 812. Cf. Telex, Inc., 90 NLRB 202.
DOUGLAS AIRCRAFT CO., INC. 515
difficulty in ascertaining the identity of the contracting labor organiza-
tion but has continued to deal with the Intervenor and its local affili-
ates. Under these circumstances, as part of the contract unit is un-
touched by the alleged schism and the Intervenor's local affiliates con-
tinue to administer the contract with active organizations, we find that
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.9 We shall therefore dismiss the
petitions.
Order
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petitions filed herein in Cases Nos.
11-RC-417, 11-RC-418, 11-RC-421, 11-RC-422, 11-RC-423, and
11-RC-429 be, and they hereby are, dismissed.
MEMBERS HousTON and MuRDOCK took no part in the consideration
of the above Decision and Order.
9 See Harris Products Company, supra ; Allied Container Corporation , 98 NLRB 580;
and cases cited therein.
DOUGLAS AIRCRAFT CO., INC.' and LOCAL UNION 45, INTERNATIONAL
BROTIIERI.IOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, AFL, PETITIONER. Case
No. 21-RC-2741. November 21, 1952
Decision and Order
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before H. C. Burngarner, 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 Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-mem-
ber panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Mardock and Peterson].
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 2
3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the repre-
sentation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section
3 The Employer's name appears as amended at the hearing.
2 District Lodge 720, International Association of Machinists, AFL, was permitted to
intervene at the hearing on the basis of its current plant-wide contract.
101 NLRB No. 113.
242305-53 34