Sunbeam Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 11, 1952

98 N.L.R.B. 525 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

SUNBEAM CORPORATION 525
defined in Section 2 (11) of the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes
of collective bargaining, within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
4. `65' The Wholesale, Retail and Warehouse Workers Union of New York and
New Jersey was on November 16, 1949, and at all times thereafter has been,
the exclusive representative of all employees in the appropriate unit for the
purposes of collective bargaining, within the meaning of Section 9 (a) of the Act.
5. By refusing to bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive rep-
resentative of its employees in the appropriate unit, the Company has engaged
in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8
(a) (5) of the Act.
6. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise
of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Company has engaged in and
is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1)
of the Act.
7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
8. The Company has not engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of
Section 8 (a) (3) in laying off or refusing to reinstate its employees.
[Recommendations omitted from publication in this volume.]
SUNBEAM CORPORATION and ANN SALABEC, EVE SALOPEK, LAURA RAE
ATKINSON, AND EARL F. OSLIE
SUNBEAM CORPORATION and UNITED ELECTRICAL, RADIO AND MACHINE
WORKERS OF AMERICA
SUNBEAM CORPORATION, PETITIONER and INTERNATIONAL BROTHER-
HOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL 1031 AND UNITED ELECTRICAL,
RADIO & MACHINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO. Cases Nos. 13-CA-
3655 13-CA-541, and 13-RM-58.1 March 11, 1952
Supplemental Decision and Order
On April 5, 1951, the Board issued its Decision and Order (Case
No. 13-CA-365, 541) finding that the Respondent, Sunbeam Corpor-
ation, had unlawfully refused to bargain with United Electrical,
Radio and Machine Workers of America, herein called the UE Inter-
national, in violation of Section 8 (a) (5) of the Act, and ordering
that it bargain with that organization 2 The Respondent's obligation
to bargain with the UE International rested upon an earlier certifi-
cation by the Board of the UE International, in Case No. 13-RM-58,
as majority representative of the Respondent's production and main-
tenance employees 3 When the certification issued, on April 14, 1950,
and when the election preceding it was held, on December 13, 1949,
'For purposes of this Supplemental Decision and Order only, Case No. 13-RM-58 Is
hereby consolidated with Case No. 13-CA-365, 541.
2 Sunbeam Corporation , 93 NLRB 1205.
a Sunbeam Corporation , 89 NLRB 469.
98 NLRB No. 98.
526 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the Board was of the opinion that Local 1150 of the UE International
was in compliance with the filing requirements of Section 9 (h) of
the Act.
On October 24, 1951, after reconsidering the compliance status of
Local 1150, the Board issued an administrative determination, finding
that Local 1150 had never been in compliance, because certain persons
found to be its "officers" had never filed non-communist affidavits
as required by Section 9 (h).4 At the same time, the Board issued
its notice to show cause why the 8 (a) (5) finding and order to bargain
in the CA case, and the 1950 certification issued in the RM case, should
not be vacated. The UE International and its Local 1150 filed a
response to the notice to show cause, and the Respondent filed an
answer. The General Counsel filed no response.
The Board has considered the response and answer, and; on the
basis of those documents and the entire records in the complaint
and the representation cases, makes the following findings and con-
clusions.5
1. The evidence contained in the records of the two cases here
consolidated reveals conclusively that both before the representation
proceeding and after issuance of the certification in favor of the UE
International, Local 1150 was active among the employees here in-
volved and represented them in collective bargaining. Thus, at the
hearing in the representation proceeding, Local 1150's business agent,
Irving Krane, asked leave to intervene "both as to the International
Union and as to Local 1150, . . . as the incumbent union in the
situation...." He then replied affirmatively to the hearing offi-
cer's inquiry as to whether he had a contract with the Employer.
In its Decision and Direction of Election, the Board directed only that
Local 1150 be placed on the ballot. The UE International and Local
1150 then asked the Regional Director that the UE International
appear on the ballot in place of Local 1150, a request which he granted.
Moreover, although the certification then issued to the UE Interna-
tional because it alone had been named on the ballot, the first request
for bargaining addressed to the Respondent was made by Fred Dutner,
the new business agent of Local 1150. It is clear on the foregoing
facts, and we find, that Local 1150 was at all times actively interested
in the representation of these employees, and that it participated in
the collective bargaining carried on in their behalf at least to the same
extent as did the UE International.
Under now well-established Board principles, neither the UE Inter-
national nor its Local 1150 would have been placed on the ballot in the
96 NLRB 1029.
s The request of the UB International and Its Local 1150 for oral argument is denied, as
the response and answer adequately set forth the positions of the parties.
SUNBEAM CORPORATION 527
election, nor would either have been certified, had the Board known
at that time that Local 1150 was not in compliance with the filing
requirements of the Acts It would be inconsistent both with the
basic considerations which impelled the establishment of that prin-
ciple, and with the spirit of Section 9 (h) itself, as indicated in the
legislative history of the 1947 amendments to the Act, to hold that
a certification inherently defective at the outset could confer on the
Union the right of later recourse to the Board, or, conversely, expose
the Employer to an unfair labor practice finding for refusing to
honor that certification. Indeed, in view of the facts as now estab-
lished, the Respondent's position throughout appears to have been
comparable to that which a majority of the Board has heretofore
indicated would be a proper defense to a charge of unlawful refusal
to bargain? Accordingly, as the certification which was the sole
evidence of the majority status of the charging Union in the complaint
proceeding ought never to have issued, the equitable arguments urged
by the UE International are insufficient to dissuade us from unani-
mously now finding that we should set aside the finding in Case
No. 13-CA-365, 541, that the Respondent violated Section 8 (a) (5)
of the Act. We shall also set aside the concomitant order to bargain.
2. Apart from the unfair labor practice proceeding, there remains
a question as to the present validity of the certification in favor of the
UE International. The Employer now having been shown to have
been right from the beginning, the same factors which lead to our con-
clusion to set aside the 8 (a) (5) finding and order require that the
2-year old certification be vacated. There is nothing, either in the
records of the representation and the complaint cases, or in the docu-
ments considered in the subsequent compliance proceeding or in con-
nection with the notice to show cause, which would warrant any other
present action with respect to the certification. Accordingly, the
Board will also set aside the certification in Case No. 13-RM-58.
Order
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Decision and Order of the Board
dated April 5, 1951, in Case No. 13-CA-365, 541, be, and it hereby is,
e Lane-Wells Co., 77 NLRB 1051 ; Hudson Pulp cE Paper Corp ., 94 NLRB 1018.
In its response , Local 1150 moved for reconsideration of the Board's determination of
compliance of October 24, 1951 . The motion is denied , as it is not supported by any
substantial matters not heretofore considered.
In its answer Respondent moved for an administrative determination that the UE Inter-
national and its Division 11 are not in compliance . The motion is denied , because the
Board's records show that the UE International has satisfied the filing requirements of
Section 9 ( f), (g), and ( h) of the Act, and because our decision herein setting aside the
certification in Case No. 13-RM-58 renders the compliance status of District 11 irrelevant.
T See New Jersey Carpet Mills, Inc., 92 NLRB 604, and Chairman Herzog's concurring
opinion therein.
528 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
set aside, and that the complaint therein be, and it hereby is, dis-
missed in its entirety .
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the election conducted on December 13,
1949, and the certification of representatives issued on April 14, 1950,
in Case No. 13-RM-58, be, and they hereby are, set aside and that the
petition filed therein be, and it hereby is, dismissed without prejudice.
SAFEWAY STORES , INCORPORATED and AMALGAMATED MEAT CUTTERS
AND BUTCHER WORKMEN OF NORTH AMERICA, AFL, LOCAL No . 537,
FOOD HANDLERS DIVISION, PETITIONER '' Case No.20-RC-1700.
March 11, 1952.
Decision and Order
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before M. C. Dempster, 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-member
panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Houston 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.2
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 Petitioner seeks a unit composed of all food handlers, stockers,
baggers, full-time and part-time, employed by the Employer at its
Price, Utah, store, excluding meat cutters and meat wrappers and
supervisors. While not objecting to the composition of the unit, the
Intervenor contends that the unit sought is inappropriate. The Em-
ployer is and has been a member of an area association of retail
employers which, since 1942 or earlier, has bargained collectively with
the Intervenor for all retail clerks in their establishments. Although
the Employer initially took a neutral position on scope of the appro-
priate unit, it later contended that its Price, Utah, grocery employees
i The name of the Petitioner appears as amended at the hearing.
2 United Retail Employees of America, CIO, Local Union No. 995, was permitted to
intervene at the hearing on the basis of its past and present contracts.
98 NLRB No. 95.