Wade Manufacturing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 12, 1952

100 N.L.R.B. 1135 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

WADE MANUFACTURING COMPANY 1135
have separate bank accounts, keep separate books, and prepare sep-
arate payrolls; the employees of each are subject to certain different
conditions of employment. However, there has been some transfer
as well as occasional interchange of personnel.6 The employees of
both Employers punch the same time clock and are subject to the same
vacation policy. The same auditor examines the books of both Em-
ployers, and the respective offices, separated merely by a partition,
continually engage in exchanging money, Vending providing Catering
with small change.
Control of both Employers is centered in the person of Otha T.
Coburn, sole owner of Catering and Vending. Coburn manages his
enterprises actively and attentively. Catering and Vending have
some degree of separate supervision, but in Coburn alone rests the
authority to hire and discharge the employees of both Employers and
to sign the checks of both Employers.
Under all the circumstances, including the identity of over- all man-
agement and control respecting labor relations and the nature of these
operations, we are of the opinion, in accordance with the Petitioner's
primary contention, that Catering and Vending constitute a single
employer and that their employees comprise a single appropriate
unit.,
Accordingly, we find that all employees of Catering and Vending
employed within the plant of Consolidated at Fort Worth, Texas,
including wagon attendants, but excluding office clerical employees,
professional employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the
Act," constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
9 Certain employees of Vending were formerly employees of Catering . On occasion
Catering 's general cashier handles Vending's money, and Catering's storeroom man aids in
compiling Vending's records. During vacation periods, some employees are regularly
interchanged.
7 Cf. Lloyd A . Fry Roofing Company and Volney Felt Mills, Inc ., 92 NLRB 1170; The
McMahon Transportation Company, Inc , and Maxwell Service Stations, Inc., 89 NLRB
1652.
9 The parties agree as to the composition of the unit.
WADE MANUFACTURING COMPANY and UNITED TEXTILE WORKERS OF
AMERICA, AFL, PETITIONER. Case No. 34-RC-398. September 12,
1952
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 Martin L. Ball, Jr.,
100 NLRB No. 191.
1136 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are
free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed 1
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 certain
employees of the Employer.2
3. On July 24, 1951, the Employer and the Intervenor executed
a collective bargaining contract covering the employees sought herein,
which has a termination date of March 1, 1953. The Intervenor con-
tends that this contract bars this petition, filed on May 28, 1952.
Bargaining relationships between the Employer and the Intervenor
commenced in 1943 and have continued up to the present date. In
late April and early May 1952, the Intervenor held its national con-
vention at Cleveland, Ohio. Following the close of the convention
and the return of delegates from Cleveland, a meeting was held on
May 5 of representatives of the Intervenor's Locals 598, 603, and 906.
At this meeting the representatives expressed their dissatisfaction
with the results of the Cleveland convention and decided to report
to and discuss the matter with their individual local memberships.
On May 16, 1952, the executive council of the Intervenor passed a
resolution finding that it had "reason to believe and does believe
that the officers of the South Central Joint Board" of the Intervenor
"and its affiliated local unions, numbers 598, 603, and 906 seek or may
seek to withdraw the said Joint Board and its aforementioned affili-
ated local unions" from the Intervenor. The same resolution ap-
pointed an administrator for the South Central Board and its
affiliated locals.
The South Central Joint Board of the Intervenor is composed of
four local unions, including Local 598 which comprises employees
in the bargaining unit at the Employer's only plant located at Wades-
' At, the hearing the Intervenor , Textile Workers Union of America , CIO, moved to
dismiss the petition on the ground of contract bar, and also requested oral argument
before the Board Both the motion and the request were referred to the Board by the
hearing officer . The motion Is hereby denied for reasons stated in paragraph numbered 3
herein, and the request for oral argument is denied because the Board considers that the
record and brief adequately present the facts, issues , and positions of the parties.
2 After the conclusion of the hearing , the Intervenor filed a motion with the Board to
reopen the record for the receipt of evidence which it contends would show that large
numbers of employees have rejoined the Intervenor , and that the Intervenor 's Local 598
at a regularly constituted meeting has repudiated the disaffiliation action. This motion
Is also denied for reasons stated in paragraph numbered 3. The Intervenor was granted'
intervention at the hearing upon showing of a contractual interest in the representation
of these employees
WADE MANUFACTURING COMPANY 1137
boro, North Carolina.3 The Joint Board serves as the direct govern-
ing and policy-making body for those locals. On May 17, 1952, the
Joint Board met at Rockingham, North Carolina, one local absent,'
and voted unanimously to disaffiliate from the Intervenor and affiliate
with the Petitioner. The meeting was a "special call" meeting and
all delegates were notified by mail of its time and purpose. Following
this action, the charter of the Joint Board was returned to the Inter-
venor and the same body was chartered by the Petitioner. Delegates
from Local 598 participated in these actions.
Likewise on May 17, 1952, a meeting was held of Local 598 pur-
suant to notices posted on or about May 12, announcing the purpose
of the meeting as "to consider whether to continue affiliation with
T. W. U. A." Approximately 225 of the 340 employees at the Em-
ployer's plant attended the May 17 local meeting:' The meeting re-
sulted in a unanimous vote to disaffiliate from the Intervenor and
affiliate with the Petitioner. All officers and stewards thereafter re-
signed from the Intervenor and were elected to assume the same posts
"as newly constituted" under the Petitioner. The charter of Local
598 was returned to the Intervenor and the Local was chartered by the
Petitioner.
Following the May 17 disaffiliation meetings, both the Joint Board
and Local 598 have met and functioned as chartered organizations
under the Petitioner. On May 18 the Petitioner requested recognition
by the Employer as representative of the employees at the Wadesboro
plant, but this recognition was refused. Since that time, the Em-
ployer has refused to pay over checkoff receipts to either the Petitioner
or the Intervenor pending resolution of the representation issue, or to
process grievances presented by either organization.
The Petitioner contends that the current contract between the
Employer and the Intervenor cannot bar the instant petition, because
the contracting union is defunct and because a schism has occurred in
the contracting union which places the representative status of that
organization at the Employer's plant in doubt. The Intervenor con-
tests these allegations. The record shows that the Intervenor, and not
'The other locals composing the Joint Board are Local 234, Lumberton ; Local 603,
Rockingham ( Alto plant ) ; and Local 906, Rockingham ( Pee Dee Plant ). The Joint
Board consists of delegates and alternates from the constituent locals.
4 The Lumberton local, Local 234, did not attend the May 17 meeting having previously
voted to remain affiliated with the Intervenor . The Intervenor , apparently, was not noti-
fied as to these meetings and their purpose before they were held.
5 The record contains conflicting evidence as to the exact number of employees at the
Employer's plant, the number varying from 340 to 370. Approximately 335 of these
emplo3 ees were members of Local 598 of the Intervenor prior to the May 17 meeting.
The normal attendance at local meetings is about 50 to 75 employees . The number
attending the May 17 meeting was estimated by the witnesses for the Petitioner, No
contrary evidence was introduced on this point.
1138 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
its Local 598, was the contracting party to the last agreement with the
Employer. The Intervenor contends that, while it lacks local officers
and stewards, it stands ready and able, through its administrator, to
service the contract and perform its representative duties. It is
abundantly clear from the record, however, that as the result of a
schism in the ranks of the Intervenor directly affecting the employees
at the Employer's plant, conflicting claims of the Petitioner and the
Intervenor have been made, causing serious confusion in the bargain-
ing relationship between the Employer and the representative of its
employees. We find this true despite the fact that the contract is in
the name of the Intervenor, because the disaffiliation of the Employer's
employees was not only from the local organization but also from the
Intervenor itself .6 Nor do we find merit in the Intervenor's conten-
tion that there were defects in the disaffiliation movement which render
it invalid.' Under the circumstances we conclude that the contract
between the Employer and the Intervenor does not bar a determination
of representatives at this time. Accordingly, we find that a question
affecting commerce exists concerning the representation of the Em-
ployer's employees within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Sec-
tion 2 (6) and (7) of the Act."
4. We find that all production and maintenance employees of the
Employer's Wadesboro, North Carolina, textile plant, excluding
executives, superintendents, overseers, second hands, clerical workers,
guards, and all supervisors as defined in the amended Act, constitute
a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within
the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
See The Mountain Copper Company , Ltd, 96 NLRB 1018; Fitzgerald Mills Corpora-
tion. 95 NLRB 948 The factual situations in Hudson Transit Lines , 86 NLRB 709;
Boyle -Midway, Incorporated, 97 NLRB 895 , and other cases as cited in the Intervenor's
brief are clearly distinguishable.
7 The Intervenor contends , in brief , that the disaffiliation meeting was sponsored and
directed by, and in the cause of, the Petitioner, that there was confusing language in
the notices posted for the disaffiliation meetings and the Intervenor was not invited to
attend the meetings ; that the local organization has no bylaws and that the Intervenor's
administrator was the only person legally qualified to call such a special meeting, as well
as other allegations of the same nature. We find no merit in these contentions. The
record shows that certain international representatives , who were influential in the dis-
affiliation movement of this local as well as others, left the employment of the Intervenor
and joined the Petitioner about the time the disaffiliation took place . We do not, how-
ever, consider that the activities of these individuals , as shown by the record , constitute
sufficient evidence of direction and control by the Petitioner to convert the situation into
a raiding expedition . Cf. Bendix Aviation Corporation , Bendix Products Division, 98
NLRB 1180, and cases cited therein . The disaffiliation meetings were, the record shows,
well advertised and attended and their purpose was made clear . The Board has consist-
ently ruled that it will not judge the question as to whether such disaffiliation attempts
are valid under the constitution and rules of a labor organization . See Consolidated Elec-
tric Lamp Company ( Champion Lamp Works Division), 89 NLRB 307.
8 See Fitzgerald Mills Corporation, supra ; Boston Machine Works Co., 89 NLRB 59, and
cases cited therein.