Shawinigan Resins Corp.

In the Matter of SHAWINIGAN RESINS CORPORATION, EMPLOYER and LOCAL 414, INTERNATIONAL CHEMICAL WORKERS UNION, AFL, PETITIONER Case No.1-RC-1584.Decided September 20, 1950 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 Joseph Lepie, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prej - udici al 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 Murdock]. 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.1 3. The question concerning representation : The Employer and Intervenor assert that their current contract which, by its terns, extends to February 1, 1952, is a bar to the present petition. The Petitioner contends that this contract is not a bar prin- cipally because a schism has developed within the contracting union, and that organization no longer exists as a functioning bargaining representative. On April 5, 1950, the executive board of the Intervenor met and unanimously adopted motions to disaffiliate from the CIO and to affiliate with the Chemical Workers Union, AFL. The board also approved motions that all officers of the intervenor retain their same. positions in the new organization, and that all the Intervenor's prop- erty and assets be transferred to the new union. These motions were then presented to a general membership meeting on the same day, attended by approximately 15 members,' but no vote was taken at that ' The Intervenor, Local Industrial Union 1303, united Chemical Workers, CIO, was per- mitted to intervene at the hearing on the basis of its current contract with the Employer. 2 The record indicates that out of a total of 281 employees in the bargaining unit, 205 were then members of the Intervenor. 91 NLRB No. 51. 354 S171AWINIGAN RESIN'S CORPORATION 355 time. Subsequently, on May 3, 1950, following oral notification and written notice, a regular membership meeting was held at which the membership, by a total vote of 45 to 1, adopted the motions originally passed by the executive board.3 On May 8,1950, the new organization, which received its formal charter as the Petitioner on May 31, 1950, notified the Employer that it now represented the Employer's em- ployees and requested recognition as the collective bargaining repre- sentative. The Employer refused this request on the basis of its con- tract with the Intervenor. The record shows that all employees who were members of the Inter- venor at the time of the disaffiliation have now authorized the Peti- tioner to represent them 4 Moreover, since its formation, the Peti- tioner has held regular membership meetings and has had a recent election of officers. There have been no meetings of the Intervenor since May 3, 1950, and no new officers have been elected or appointed. In contending, contrary to the Petitioner, that the Intervenor has continued to function as a bargaining representative, the Employer asserts that the charter of the Intervenor has not 'been returned to the CIO, and that other formal steps looking to its dissolution have not been accomplished. However, as we stated recently in the Fitler cases involving a similar contention by an employer, The question at issue is not whether the contracting union has been formally dissolved, but whether such confusion exists as to the continued functioning of the contracting union as bargaining representative, that the refusal to hold an election can no longer be said to contribute to the stability in labor relations. The Employer also contends that the Intervenor, through its stewards, has continued to process grievances of the employees. The record indicates, however, that these stewards, who had functioned in a similar capacity in the Intervenor, served after the disaffiliation as stewards of the Petitioner and, in their dealings with the Employer, considered themselves acting in the Petitioner's behalf. Under all the circumstances, we are of the opinion that confusion clearly exists in the instant case as to the continued functioning of the Intervenor as bargaining representative, and that the purpose of the Act will best be effectuated by directing an election at this time. We O The meeting was held In two sections in order to permit both shifts of employees to attend , and a quorum was present at each section meeting. 4 While the Employer continues to deduct dues on behalf of the Intervenor from approxi- mately 23 employees , it appears that these employees have sought to revoke their checkoff authorizations but that the Employer has refused to honor such revocations because the 1-year term of the authorizations has not expired . The dues so deducted have been impounded by the Employer. The Edwin H. Fitler Co., 90 NLRB No. 254. 917572-51-vol. 91-24 356 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD find, therefore, that the existing agreement is not a bar to. this proceeding.' Accordingly, we find that a question affecting commerce exists con- cerning the representation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The following employees of the Employer constitute a'unit appro- priate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act : All hourly rated employees of the Employer at its Indian Orchard, Massachusetts, plant, excluding executives, office and clerical em- ployees, guards, professional employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act. . [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this volume.] 9 The Edwin H. Fitler Co., supra ; of. Sun Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Company, 86 NLRB 20; Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company, Columbia Chemical Division, 80 NLRB 1331. See also J. J. Tourek Manufacturing Co., 90 NLRB 5; Felt and Tarrant Manufacturing Company, 90 NLRB No. 236. After the hearing, the Employer moved to reopen the record to admit into evidence a letter from the Petitioner to the Employer, dated July 14, 1950, requesting the negotiation of a new contract, and the Employer's reply thereto, dated July 31, 1950, refusing this request. The Employer argues, in this connection , that such evidence demonstrates that the disaffiliation was prompted by a desire to avoid the obligations of the existing contract. The motion to reopen is hereby denied. For the reasons fully stated in Boston Machine Works Company, 89 NLRB 59 , we are not here concerned with the obligations of the Employer and the labor organization , under the existing contract . Moreover , assuming arguendo, that such evidence is properly admissible, it does not, upon the entire record, establish that the disaffiliation resulted from a desire to avoid the obligations of the current collective bargaining agreement.