Gardner-Denver Co.

GARDNER-DENVER COMPANY 77 GARDNER-DENVER COMPANY and UNITED STEEL WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER. Case No. 30-RC-630. November 21, 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 Clyde F. Waers, 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, Murdock, 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 organization involved claims to represent employees of the Employer. 3. Pursuant to a Board-directed election,' the Board, on May 11, 1949, certified Office Employees International Union, Local No. 5, AFL, hereinafter referred to as Local No. 5, as the exclusive bargain- ing representative of the employees on the office payroll of the Em- ployer's Denver, Colorado, plant. Thereafter, on August 1, 1949, the Employer and Local No. 5 entered into a collective bargaining agree- ment which was to remain in effect until August 1, 1950, and thereafter from year to year unless terminated by notice not less than 60 or more than 75 days before the end of any yearly period. On June 30, 1951, the Petitioner advised the Employer by letter that it represented a majority of the employees on the office payroll and that it was therefore requesting recognition as the bargaining representative of these employees. On the same day, the Petitioner filed the instant petition. The Employer contends that its contract with Local No. 5 is a bar to this proceeding. The Petitioner, on the other hand, takes the posi- tion that the contract is not effective as a bar to this proceeding because Local No. 5 has renounced its interest in the employees covered by the contract. The record shows that for several months after the 1949 contract was executed, it was administered by a committee of employees repre- senting Local No. 5 which met with the Employer about once a month. However, only three such meetings have been held since the fall of 1950.2 During the first year of the contract two officials of Local 1'82 NLRB 201. ' The record shows that the committee recently obtained wage increases as well as certain other benefits for the employees. 97 NLRB No, 17. 78 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD No. 5 personally communicated with the Employer from time to time. In the past year, however, no official of Local No. 5 has contacted the Employer or attempted in any way to represent the employees here involved in their dealings with the Employer. Moreover, on July 31, 1951, Local No. 5 wrote the Employer the following letter : For the past several weeks, we have been in the process of deter- mining our interest and responsibility among the office and tech- nical employees at your Company regarding representation of that group under (the) existing contract between your Company and Local No. 5. . . . We have determined from our members, former members and potential members that, even though some employees eligible, to vote in such an election would probably vote for Local No. 5, we do not consider ourselves to have an effective bargaining or repre- sentation unit at this time. Accordingly, we feel that we have no responsibility to pursue this matter further and are withdraw- ing our interest, officially, this date. This will permit your Com- pany, and USA, CIO, to proceed with the NLRB to hold the necessary certification election. A copy of this letter was forwarded to the Petitioner with the following note : We expect you fellows to win this election and do a job for these people. If you don't, we will as long as I have anything to do for Local 5. We could represent them now-but we aren't going to stand in the way of organization work another union has already done so good luck. Although served with written notice, Local No. 5 did not appear at the hearing. From the foregoing, it is clear that Local No. 5 has abandoned the administration of its contract with the Employer and, in fact, has advised the Employer in writing that it no longer claims to represent the employees in question. Under these circumstances, we find that the contract is not a bar to an election at this time. A question affecting commerce exists concerning 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 appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act: All employees on the office payroll of the 8 Cf. Reynolds & Manley Lumber Company, 88 NLRB 1300; Armour and Company,, 95 NLRB 956. For the reasons stated in Boston Machine Works Company, 89 NLRB 59, we find it unnecessary to pass on the Employer's contention that the Petitioner, if chosen as the collective bargaining representative, should be bound by the contract of Local No. 5. SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE' COMPANY 79 Employer at its Denver, Colorado, plant, excluding all production and maintenance employees, plant clericals, assistants to the personnel director, confidential secretaries, time-study engineers, rate setters, routing engineers, the manager of the employees' credit union, tech- nical employees, department heads, and all other supervisors as defined in the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this volume.] SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY and CLAUDE JULYAN SOUTHWESTERN DIVISION No. 20, COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO and CLAUDE JULYAN. Cases Nos. 14-CA-550 and 141.-CB-110. November 203, 1951 Decision and Order On July 30,1951, Trial Examiner James R. Hemingway issued his intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Interme- diate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondents filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and supporting briefs. The Board 1 has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Interme- diate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda- tions of the Trial Examiner, with the modifications and exceptions noted below. We agree with the Trial Examiner that the Respondent Company, at the instance of the Respondent Union, discriminatorily refused to permit employee Julyan to trade his work tour assignment because he was not a member of the Respondent Union, and thereby violated Sec- tion 8 (a) (3) and (1) of the Act. We also agree with the Trial Ex- aminer that the Respondent Union, in violation of Section 8 (b) (2) and (1) (A) of the Act, attempted to, and did, cause the Respondent Company to discriminate in this manner against Julyan.2 In reach- 1 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the hoard has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three -member panel [ Members Houston, Reynolds , and Styles]. 2 We not only agree with the Trial Examiner that the terms of the contract did not justify the discrimination in question, but find , in addition , that Even if the contract authorized such discrimination , it would not be lawful or enforceable Rockaway News Supply Company, lne, 94 NLRB 1056, and cases there cited. 97 NLRB No. 19.