Fitzgerald Mills Corp.

948 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD integration in that the logging camp furnishes a portion of the logs used in the sawmill , and as the two operations are subject to common over-all management and control , we further find that a single unit including both the sawmill employees and the logging employees may also be appropriate." Accordingly, we shall make no present determination of the appro- priate unit, but shall reserve such finding pending an expression of the desires of the employees of the Employer's sawmill operations as revealed in the election which we shall hereinafter direct. If a majority of the voting group designated below vote for the Intervenor, they will be deemed to have indicated their desire to be represented in a single unit together with the employees of the Employer's logging operations now representing by the Intervenor. If a majority vote for the Petitioner, they will be taken to have indicated their desire to constitute a separate unit. We shall direct that an election by secret ballot be held among the employees in the following voting group : Employees in the Employer's sawmill operations in Sultan, Wash- ington, including the employees in the sawmill , planing mill, yard, shipping department, boom, and powerhouse , but excluding shingle mill employees, office personnel , guards, the sawmill foreman, and all other supervisors s as defined in the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this volume.] 8 The J. N. Bray Company, 83 NLRB 388 9 A question was raised at the hearing as to the supervisory status of Olsen , foreman of the sawmill, and Rode, referred to as the millwright in the sawmill division. As the Employer in effect conceded that Olsen possesses authority to hire , discharge, and to direct the work of employees under him , we find that he is a supervisor and shall exclude him. The record , however, is insufficient to enable us to make a determination as to Rode 's status. If, in fact , he possesses supervisory authority within the meaning of section 2 (11) of the Act, he shall be excluded from the voting group . Otherwise , he shall be included. Chrysler Corporation, 80 NLRB 334 ; Lalance if Grosyean lifanufactna any Co ., 63 NLRB 130. FITZGERALD MILLS CORPORATION and TEXTILE WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER. Case No. 10-RC-1339. August °d, 1951 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 Jerold B. Sindler, 95 NLRB No. 96. ' FITZGERALD MILLS' CORPORATION 949 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 [Members Houston, Reynolds, 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 certain em- ployees of the Employer. 3. On June 15, 1948, following a Board-directed election ,2 United Textile Workers of America, A. F. L., the Intervenor herein, was certi- fied as the exclusive bargaining representative of employees at they. Employer's Fitzgerald, Georgia, plant. On January 28, 1949, thet Employer and the Intervenor and its Local -Union -150, to -which employees at the plant belonged, executed a contract, to be effective from that date until January 31, 1951, with a provision for automatic renewal unless written notice was given on or before December 1, 1950;, of a desire to terminate, amend, or change the terms of the agreement- On October 23, 1950, the Petitioner asked the Employer for recce ognition as bargaining representative of employees at the plant.. The Employer made no reply, and on October 31, 1950, the Peti- tioner filed a petition for certification in Case No. 10-RC-1125. Orr November 27, 1950, the Intervenor, as a result of general dissatis- faction with the current contract and after consultation with the• president of Local Union 150, gave. written notice to amend and, change substantial portions of the agreement with the Employer;, noted above. On' December 20, 1950, the Petitioner withdrew the' petition in Case No. 10-RC-1125. On December 27, 1950, the Inter- venor, after consultation with the president of Local Union 150, in writing notified the Employer of its,desire to revoke its notice to) amend and change the existing agreement. On January 2; 1951, the Employer accepted the..Iritervenor's revocation of the notice and. agreed, in accordance with the terms of the Intervenor's revocation, that the existing contract between the Employer and the Intervenor- and Local Union 150 was renewed for a new contract period? ' The Intervenor's request for oral argument is denied as, in our opinion , the record and briefs adequately present the positions 'of the parties. The Intervenor's motion to reopen the record to disclose events which have transpired) since the close of the hearing, to which the Petitioner is opposed , is denied inasmuch as' the continued activity of Local Union 150 under the trusteeship , is presumed, and the present wishes of employees with respect to' a bargaining representative can best be deter- mined by an election. 2 77 NLRB 1157. 950 DECISIONS; OF NATIONAL .LABOR RELATIO}^S BOARD On January 9, 1951, Fitzgerald Mill Workers' Council, an un- affiliated labor organization, filed a petition for certification in Case No. 10-RC-1219. On February 21, 1951, the Regional Director re- fused to issue notice of hearing, holding the renewed contract between the Employer and the Intervenor and its Local Union 150 a bar to an immediate election. No appeal was taken from the ' Regional Director's action. On March 19, 1951, the Petitioner in the instant case again requested recognition of the Employer. Again the Em- ployer did not reply, and on March 20, 1951, the Petitioner filed the petition in the instant proceeding. The Intervenor contends that its renewed. contract covering em- ployees at the plant is a bar to the instant petition, and the Employer agrees with its position. The. Petitioner contends that the contract is not a bar, alleging that the Intervenor's revocation was made without. the knowledge of Local.Union 150 and was not ratified by the members of Local Union 150 and was therefore ineffective. The Petitioner further urges that, even if the contract were renewed, the contract is not a bar, alleging (1) that the Intervenor's Local Union 150 is defunct or (2) that a schism in its ranks has created instability in industrial relations at the Employer's plant and that an election should be held to determine a bargaining representative. . In January 1951, there were approximately 528 employees. in the contract unit at.the Employer's plant. Of these, 149 employees were members of the Intervenor. Although only 7 employees were re- quired to constitute a quorum, it had been difficult to obtain a quorum for scheduled meetings. On March 22, 1951, 2 days after the filing of the instant petition, between 60 and 75 employees of the Employer attended an informal gathering held at the community school house. No current officers of the Intervenor were in attendance.3 The employees present dis- cussed. the matter of disaffiliating from the Intervenor and securing a charter from the Petitioner. March 24, 1951, was a regular meeting day for members of Inter- venor's Local Union 150. Contrary to custom, however, no notice had been posted for any meeting to be- held on that day. A group of employees,% however, assembled at the usual time at. the meeting hall. The door of the meeting room was locked. The newly elected president of, the Intervenor was informed that a group of employees desired to have the meeting. hall opened and hold a meeting, but he refused to hold a meeting or to permit the hall to be opened for a meeting. : The employees thereupon held, meetings in the hallway of a The former president of the Intervenor's Local Union 150 resigned his, position-on January 27, 1951. He actively participated in this and other meetings for disaffiliation from the Intervenor. 'FITZGEItA1L'D'1VIIIiLS' CORPORATION 1951 the meeting hall, both in the morning and in the afternoon of that day.4 Sixteen employees present at the morning meeting unani- mously voted to disaffiliate from the Intervenor" and affiliate with the Petitioner. Thirteen employees present in, the afternoon meeting also voted unanimously to disaffiliate from the Intervenor and affili- ate with the Petitioner. Minutes of the morning and • afternoon meetings were reduced to writing and signed by those present. These employees then asked the president of Local Union 150 to call a special meeting for April 7, 1951, to put to a vote at a formal meeting the question of disaffiliation from the Intervenor and affiliation with the Petitioner. The president of Local Union 150, however, refused to call such a meeting, algid no meetings' were therefore held on the suggested date. On April 4, 1951, the Intervenor placed Local Union 150 under a trustee. On April 14, 1951, pursuant to a notice issued by the president of Local Union 150, morning and afternoon meetings were held at which the trustee presided. The purpose of the meetings was not stated in the notice. Thirty-six and 21 employees, respec tively, attended these morning and afternoon meetings. At both meetings the trustee informed the members present of the action of the Intervenor in placing Local Union 150 under him. He refused to entertain any motion or to discuss any other matter at either meeting. At both meetings, motions to disaffiliate from the Inter- venor and affiliate with the Petitioner were made. The trustee, how- ever, refused to recognize the movants, and ruled the motions out of order. In response to a call from the floor, a standing vote was taken on the motion. At the morning meeting, 25 employees voted to disaffiliate from the Intervenor, and 11 abstained from voting. At the afternoon meeting, the same procedure occurred, and 22 , voted to disaffiliate, and two abstained `from voting. The trustee declared this procedure illegal. At the time of the hearing, the trustee appointed by the Inter- venor maintained control of Local Union 150. He had difficulty in maintaining stewards in the various departments of the Employer's plant. The foregoing circumstances indicate that, although Local Union 150 is not defunct, a schism exists within that organization, which, for reasons stated in earlier cases,-5 removes the current contract as a bar to a present determination of representatives.e 4 When the Employer went on a 6-day week, Local Union 150 held regular' monthly meetings on Saturday mornings and Saturday afternoons in order that employees on all three shifts could attend one or the other of the meetings. - Harrisburg Railway Company, 94 NLRB' 1028, and cases cited therein. In view of this finding, we find it unnecessary to resolve other issues raised with re- spect to the contract. --952 DECISIONS-0F. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD We. -find that a question, affecting commerce exists concerning 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. In accordance with an agreement of the parties, we find that the following employees of the Employer constitute a unit appro- priate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the mean- .ing of Section 9 (b) of the Act : All production and maintenance employees at the Employer's Fitzgerald, Georgia, textile mill, includ- ing watchmen-firemen, chief electrician, and section-men, 7 but ex- eluding all office clerical employees, guards and gatemen, profes- sional employees;, overseers, and other supervisors. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this volume.] 4 After the issuance ' of the Board's decision in the earlier case, noted in footnote 1, 4supra, the Employer removed all supervisory powers from section-men. PEABODY ENGINEERING COMPANY and - LODGE 1887, INTERNATIONAL As5`6CIATION OF MACHINISTS , PETITIONER. Case No. 2-RC-3049. August 3, 1951 Decision, Order, and Direction of Election Pursuant to a "Stipulation for Certification upon Consent Elec- tion" entered into by the parties hereto, an election by secret ballot was conducted in the above-entitled proceeding on January 24, 1951, among the Employer's production and maintenance employees, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the. Sec- and Region. Upon the conclusion of the election, a tally of ballots !vas furnished the parties in accordance with the Rules and Regula- tions of the Board. The tally shows that of approximately 78 eligible voters, 74 ballots were cast, of which 36 were for, and 38 against, the Petitioner. - Thereafter, on January 26, the Petitioner filed timely objections to the conduct of the election on the ground that the attorney for the Employer was permitted to act as observer for the Employer over the protest of the Petitioner, thus interfering with the freedom of :choice of the 'employees. The Regional Director investigated the objections and issued his report on objections, recommending that the objections be sus- tained and the election set aside. Thereafter, the Employer filed timely exceptions to the report on objections. 95 NLRB No. 95.