Boyle-Midway, Inc.

BOYLE-MIDWAY, INC. 895 BOYLE-MIDWAY, INC. and UNITED GAS, COKE AND CHEMICAL WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER . Case No. 10-RC-1501. December 29,1951 Decision and Order Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Frank E. Hamilton, Jr., 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. The Employer and the Intervenor, Atlanta District Lodge No. 46, International Association of Machinists, contend that this pro- ceeding is barred by a contract covering the employees whom the Peti- tioner seeks to represent. The Petitioner contends that the contract bar doctrine is inapplicable, on the ground that a schism has occurred within the Intervenor at the plant involved. The Intervenor, an amalgamated local union, has a contract with the Employer which expires in July 1952, covering the 56 employees in the plant-wide unit petitioned for. The contract was negotiated and signed by the chairman of the shop committee, as well as by the Intervenor's business agent. On June 19, 1951, while the chairman of the shop committee was on vacation, approximately 28 of the em- ployees in the unit held a special meeting, the purpose of which had been advertised by word of mouth, and voted 27 to 1 to disaffiliate from the Intervenor and to affiliate with the Petitioner. On or about July 11, 1951, another special meeting was similarly advertised and held. Approximately 36 employees attended, 10 or 12 of whom had also attended the first meeting. All, including the members of the shop committee, again voted to disaffiliate. These 2 meetings were presided over by a representative of the Petitioner, were held in the Petitioner's hall, and were "CIO meetings." 1 The Intervenor continues to exist as a large and active union, and has handled promptly all grievances referred to it by employees in the unit. 1 The Petitioner's witness , Calvin John Warbington , testified without contradiction regarding the meetings : Q. Was it [the first meeting ] advertised as a meeting of the I. A. M.? A. No. The C. I. O. [Petitioner ] was having it. Q. Was the second meeting advertised as a meeting of the I. A. M.? A. No, sir ; the C. I. O. It was about the I. A.M.; wanting to get rid of it. Q. Both meetings, though , were meetings of the C. I. 0.? A. Yes, sir. 97 NLRB No. 120. 896 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD In certain cases the Board has found that when employees covered by a contract, purportedly in a meeting of the contracting union, vote to disaffiliate from the union, that action in the context of an interunion split of serious proportions creates a schism which causes confusion in the bargaining relationship between the employer and the representa- tive of his employees, so that the contract no longer serves to promote industrial stability and thus should not bar an immediate election.2 The facts in this case do not warrant the application of the schism doctrine. Apart from other considerations, the employees have not voted at a meeting of the contracting union to disaffiliate from that union. The meetings were held in the petitioning union's hall and were presided over by representatives of that union. The Petitioner's witness testified that the meetings were those of the petitioning union. As the meetings at which the votes to disaffiliate were taken were not meetings of the contracting union, it cannot be said that a schism has occurred in the sense in which the Board has used that term.' In this connection, we note that the contracting union is still ready, willing, and able to continue representing these employees for purposes of collective bargaining. Upon the basis of the foregoing and of the entire record in this case, we conclude that the current contract between the Intervenor and the Employer bars a determination of representatives at this time. Ac- cordingly, we shall dismiss the petition. Order IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition filed by United Gas, Coke and Chemical Workers of America, CIO, be, and it hereby is, dismissed. 2 Boston Machine Works Company , 89 NLRB 59; Sun Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Company, 86 NLRB 20. 2 Lewitte8 & Sons, 96 NLRB 775 ; see also Telem, Inc., 90 NLRB 202 SOUTHLAND PAPER MILLS, INC. and STATIONARY ENGINEERS, LOCAL 707, INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS, AFL, PETI- TIONER. Case No. 16-RC-814. December 09, 1951 Decision and Order Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before Charles Y. Latimer, 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 National Labor Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Murdock and Styles]. 97 NLRB No. 119.