Harris Products Co.

-812 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1 eluding Millwright Locals of the United Brotherhood o ef Carpenters and Joiners of America, A.F.L., Respondents have engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) of the, Act. 3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing employees and applicants for employment in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondents have engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor prac- tices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting -commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. [Recommended Order omitted from publication in this volume.] HARRIS PRODUCTS COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTO- MOBILE, AIRCRAFT, AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER. Case No. 8-R'C-1300. October 15,1951 Decision and Order Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National :Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Carroll L. Martin, 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 em- ployees of the Employer. 3. The Employer and the Intervenor, Mechanics Education So- ciety of America, Local 59, contend that this proceeding is barred by a contract covering the employees whom the Petitioner seeks to represent. The Petitioner contends, that the contract bar doctrine is inapplicable upon the ground that a schism occurred within the bargaining representative at the plant for which the Petitioner seeks certification. The Employer operates two plants, one in Cleveland, Ohio, and the other in Milan, Ohio. The plant at Milan, which is the only plant involved in this proceeding, is located about 55 miles away from the Cleveland plant. On July 13, 1950, following a card check, the Employer and the Intervenor entered into a 2-year contract cover- ing all production and maintenance employees at both the Cleveland and Milan plants." It is this contract which the Employer and the Intervenor contend is a bar to this proceeding. 1 The original expiration date of the contract was July 13 , 1952. However, on November 6, 1950, the Employer and the Intervenor entered into a supplemental agreement which, among other things, extended the expiration date of the contract to July 13, 1955. 96 NLRB No. 125. HARRIS PRODUCTS COMPANY 813 Approximately 64 production and maintenance employees are em- ployed at the Employer's Milan plant and approximately 81 produc- tion and maintenance workers are employed at the Employer's Cleve- land plant 2 Although employees of the Employer belonged to the same local of the Intervenor, employee members at each plant cus- tomarily met separately. On May 19,1951, pursuant to a notice posted by the shop committee chairman, a special meeting of the Milan plant employees was held. Forty-five employees, including the shop com- mittee chairman and at least one of the other two shop committeemen at the plant, attended the meeting and signed resolutions disaffiliating from the Intervenor and affiliating with the Petitioner. On May 22, 1951, the Petitioner made its demand for recognition upon the Em- ployer. Thereafter, the Intervenor appointed a new shop committee chairman for the Milan plant and has in other respects demonstrated that it is capable of acting as a bargaining representative of the em- ployees at that plant.' No notice of the meeting of May 19, 1951, was given to the employees at the Cleveland plant, and there has been no attempt at disaffiliation on their part. The Employer has con- tinued to recognize the Intervenor as the bargaining representative of its employees at both plants. The Petitioner contends that the existing contract between the Em- ployer and the Intervenor is not a bar to this proceeding, upon the ground that a schism has occurred within the bargaining representa- tive at the Milan plant. In support of its position that the disaffilia- tion action taken by the Milan plant employees is sufficient to render the contract bar doctrine inapplicable, the Petitioner cites the Board's: decision in Pratt & Letchworth, Co., Inc.4 In that case, a contract was held not to bar an election where disaffiliation action was taken by employees who were members of an amalgamated local. However,. in that case, as in other similar cases,' the disaffiliation action was as broad in scope as was the unit covered by the contract asserted as a. bar. Moreover, the disaffiliation action taken in this case did not involve a majority of the employees covered by the contract; 6 nor did it occur within the whole of a Board-certified unit.' The mere- fact that the unit which the Petitioner seeks to represent might be found appropriate does not, by itself, constitute a sufficient basis for applying the schism doctrine to a situation of this kind. In the light 2 Although the record contains varying estimates of the employment at each plant, there- appears to be no doubt that there are more production and maintenance employees at the- Cleveland plant than at the Milan plant. ° From the remarks of counsel at the hearing , it appears that the Intervenor has started suit for recovery of the assets or records of the organization at the Milan plant. 4 89 NLRB 124. ° See,- e. g:, Radio Station WBNY, 92 NLRB 1561 ; J. J. Tourek Manufacturing Co., 90 NLRB 5; United Specialties Company, 89 NLRB 605; American Pulley Company, 89 NLRB: 304. ° Cf. John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Company, 93 NLRB 778. a Cf. General Electric Company Appliance Service Center, 96 NLRB 566. ;814 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD of all the circumstances of this case, we find that there has been no defection of sufficient scope and effect to create confusion and uncer- tainty with regard to the status of the Intervenor as the bargaining representative of the Employer's employees." Accordingly, we find that the July 13, 1950, contract between the Employer and the Inter- venor is a, bar to this proceeding. We shall, therefore, dismiss the ,petition. Order IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition filed by the International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft, and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, CIO, be, and it hereby is, dismissed. 8 RCA Service Company, Inc., 94 NLRB 1122. -JOSEPH H. BOWMAN, D/B/A HUNT CONSTRUCTION COMPANY and SHOP- MEN'S LOCAL UNION 527, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BRIDGE, STRUCTURAL AND ORNAMENTAL IRON WORKERS, A. F. L., PETITIONER. Case No. 6-RC-864. October 15, 1951 Decision and Order Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Joseph C. Thackery, 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-mem- .ber panel [Members Houston, Reynolds, and Styles]. 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. 3. The alleged question concerning representation : The Petitioner seeks to represent the production and maintenance employees at the Employer's Carnegie, Pennsylvania, steel fabrica- tion plant. On July 2, 1951, the Employer and the Intervenor exe- cuted a 1-year contract covering such employees,2 and containing the following union-security provision : All employees who, fifteen days after the date of this signed contract . . . are members of the Union in good standing .. . and those employees who may thereafter become such members, i United Steelworkers of America, CIO, herein called the Intervenor, intervened for itself and its Local 4600 on the basis of its contractual interest. 2 The contract was entered into by the Intervenor on behalf of itself and Local 4600. 96 NLRB No. 128.