Radionic Controls, Inc.

In the Matter of RADIONIC PRODUCTS DIVISION, RADIONIC CONTROLS, INC., EMPLOYER and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, PETITIONER Case No. 14.-RC-1107.-Decided September 09, 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 Harry G. Carlson, 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 certain employees of the Employer. 3. District 50 and the Employer assert their contract dated July 8, 1949, for the term of 2 years with a 30-day automatic renewal clause as a bar to this proceeding. The Petitioner contends that because of a "schism" in the membership of Local Union 13114, the contract is not a bar. On May 21, 1950, a special meeting of the membership of Local Union 13114 was held in Marion, Illinois, pursuant to a notice posted ,on the bulletin board in the Employer's plant on May 19, 1950, which stated that the purpose of this meeting was to vote on the question of affiliation with the Petitioner. The meeting was further publicized by verbal. notification to employees by the local's officers. Twenty members attended the me.eting,2 a majority of whom voted to dis- affiliate from District 50 and to affiliate with the Petitioner and to i Intervention was granted to District 50, United Mine Workers of America, and to its Local Union 13114. These intervenors are herein collectively called District 50. Southern Illinois District Council , affiliated with Hod Carrier's, Building & Common Laborers' Union of America , AFL, was also properly permitted to intervene. The motion by District 50 to dismiss the petition on the ground of contract bar is denied for the reasons stated in paragraph numbered 3, infra. The motion by District 50 for oral argument is also denied as in our opinion the issues and positions of the parties are ade- quately presented by the record and the briefs. 2 The usual attendance at regular meetings of the local was 10 to 12 members. The Employer's working force normally consists of 150 employees. At the time of the hearing only 75 employees were employed. 91 NLRB No. 95. 595 917572-51-vol. 91-39 596 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD "retain" the current officers. On the following day, the Employer was notified of this action and was requested to recognize and bargain with the former officers and shop committee of the local representing the Employer's employees who were now affiliated with the Petitioner. Thereafter, the officers of Local Union 13114 submitted their resigna- tions to the District 50 representative to whom the recording. secre- tary turned over the local's seal and other records in her possession. Although a local organization has not yet been established, the Peti- tioner intends to form a local lodge at the plant if an election is ordered and a certification is obtained. Meanwhile, informal meet- ings of employees have been held which were presided over by a Grand Lodge representative of the Petitioner. Following the resignation of the officers of Local Union 13114, the District 50 representative posted a notice on the bulletin board at the plant stating that meetings of the local would continue to be held. At a meeting held on June 23, 1950, attended by seven or eight mem- bers, new officers were selected. The Employer was notified of their names and was advised that they would administer the existing con- tract. These officers were also instructed by the District 50 repre- sentative to operate as a grievance committee. The committee has not yet handled any grievances, but the District 50 representative has himself handled one grievance and, together with the newly se- lected president, has conferred informally with the Employer regard- ing the wage reopening clause in the contract. District 50 contends that the disaffiliation action taken at the meet- ing of May 21, 1950, is in contravention of the rules and bylaws of District 50 and in violation of the loyalty oaths of members and offi- cers of this organization. For these and similar reasons,, it urges that the disaffiliation lacks legal validity and that the petition should therefore be dismissed. We shall not, however, undertake to resolve the legal questions thus raised for they are immaterial to the issue of representation before US .4 These circumstances reveal that there has been a schism in the contracting union's organization which we find, for reasons stated in the Boston Machine Yorks case,5 removes the existing contract as a bar to an immediate determination of representatives.' 3 District 50 alleges also that the disaffiliation was invalid because the notice for the May 21 meeting was defective in form , the meeting was in furtherance of a fraudulent scheme by former representatives of District 50 to deliver the employees involved herein to the Petitioner, and that the meeting was illegally held at Marion, II11inois , rather than at the customary meeting place in Herrin , Illinois. 4 Columbian Rope Company, 88 NLRB 1448. 6 Boston Machine Works, 89 NLRB 120. G In view of our finding herein it is unnecessary to pass on the' Petitioner's contentions, raised in its brief, that the contract should not bar the petition because it contains unlawful. checkoff and maintenance -of-membership provisions , and that the bargaining unit set forth therein is inappropriate. R'ADIOATIC PRODUCTS DIVISION 597 Accordingly, we find that a question affecting commerce exists con- cerning the representation of the Employer's employees within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The parties are in agreement that the appropriate unit shall consist of the Employer's production and maintenance employees. The Employer and District 50 however, would exclude one employee who works in the stockroom whom the Petitioner would include.. This employee has been excluded in past bargaining from the estab lished production and maintenance unit and the Employer contends that he should continue to be excluded on the ground that his interests are not sufficiently related to those of the employees in the unit to war- rant his inclusion therein. The principal duties of the stockroom employee appear to consist of maintaining a perpetual stock inventory and issuing materials to production employees. About one-half of his time is spent maintain- ing records and performing related clerical duties. At present, he alone works in the stockroom, but at times of peak production, he is assisted by other employees in the unit classified as material handlers. It is conceded however, that he has no supervisory authority over these employees. Under these circumstances, we believe that his interests are closely related to those of the other production and maintenance employees and we shall include him in the unit.' We find that all production and maintenance employees at the Em- ployer's Carbondale, Illinois, plant, including the stockroom em- ployee, but excluding all office and clerical employees, watchmen, guards, professional employees, and supervisors as defined in the 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.] ' United Screw d Bolt Corporation, 89 NLRB 953.