Canfield Oil Co.

688 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD CANFIELD OIL COMPANY and OIL WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, CIO, PETITIONER. Case No. 8RC-1595. June 12, 1952 Decision and Order Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Bernard Ness, 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, Styles, and Peterson]. 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 employees of the Employer? 3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa- tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, for the following reasons: The Employer and the Intervenor contend that their current con- tract is a bar to this proceeding. The Petitioner asserts that the contract is not a bar because of a schism within the membership of the Intervenor. The employees here involved were represented by the Petitioner for a number of years before 1951. However, on March 16, 1951, fol- lowing an election conducted on March 9, 1951, the Intervenor, an amalgamated local which also included, as members, employees of other employers, was certified by the Board as bargaining representa- tive of the Employer's employees 2 Thereafter, the Employer and the Intervenor executed a contract covering these employees, effective from May 31,1951, to May 31, 1953, and containing a 60-day automatic renewal clause. In January 1952, as the result of a joint petition submitted by the Employer and the Intervenor to the Wage Stabilization Board in September 1951, a wage increase was authorized for the Employer's employees. The increase was not as large as anticipated by the work- ers and they decided to drop their membership in the Intervenor and reaffiliate with the Petitioner. Without informing the Intervenor of their intent, the 15 employees of the Employer who were members of 'Petroleum Truck Drivers and Helpers Local No. 545, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers of America , AFL, herein called the Intervenor, was permitted to intervene at the hearing on the basis of its contractual relationship. 2 Case No. 8-RC-1130. 99 NLRB No. 112. CANFIELD OIL COMPANY 689 the Intervenor 3 stopped paying dues in January and all the em- ployees in the unit signed Petitioner's authorization cards. On Feb- ruary 29, f952, the petition herein was filed by the Petitioner. Thereafter, at a conference with representatives of the Board, the employees allegedly learned for the first time of the existing contract. On March 14, 1952, a meeting of the intervenor members within the Employer was called by Rutter, who had served as the Intervenor's steward 4 Notice of the meeting was passed around by word of mouth. The meeting was attended by 12 of the 15 members of the Intervenor in the plants No officer or representative of either the Petitioner or Intervenor was present. At this meeting the employees indicated dissatisfaction with their wages and with the 2-year con- tract executed allegedly without their knowledge, and unanimously voted to resign from the Intervenor, to rejoin the Petitioner, and to request the Board to hold an election. A petition to that effect was prepared and signed by all members of the Intervenor in the plant. The Intervenor which, as already noted, is an amalgamated local, has continued to hold its regular weekly meetings and there is no contention of defunctness at this plant. Neither union has notified the Employer of any formal change of affiliation. However, the Em- ployer refused to recognize either organization pending the Board's decision herein. The Board has recently indicated that the schism doctrine , as enun- ciated in the Boston Machine case 8 and relied upon by the Petitioner, is not to become an unqualified exception to the contract bar rule.' Here, we note, among other things, that the Intervenor is an existing and identifiable organization which recently assisted in effecting a wage increase for the employees; and that the situation is not one involving a split created by basic intraunion conflict over policy and management, but merely one where the employees are dissatisfied with their representative and desire to make a change at a time generally considered inappropriate by the Board. Under these circumstances, we find that the schism doctrine is inapplicable and that the current contract between the Employer and the Intervenor operates as a bar to an immediate determination of representatives .8 We shall there- fore dismiss the petition. There are a total of 23 employees in the unit. The steward's duties consisted of collecting dues from employees , turning the money over to the Intervenor, and processing any grievances that might arise. None of the Employer's employees was an officer of the Intervenor. 5 The three absentees were night shift employees who were not at work in the plant when the meeting was called. However, they subsequently joined in the action taken at the meeting. 8 Boston Machine Works, 89 NLRB 59. 7 Hardy Manufacturing Company, 98 NLRB 811, and cases cited therein. 8 See Allied Container Corporation, 98 NLRB 580, and Loroco Industries, Inc, 99 NLRB 46, and cases cited therein The employees' alleged lack of knowledge of the existing contract clearly does not preclude the contract from serving as a bar. Canada Dry Ginger Ale, Incorporated, 97 NLRB 597; H. Muehlstein and Co, 93 NLRB 1273. 690 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Order IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition filed in this case be, and it hereby is, dismissed. Lows ROSE COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMO- BILE, AIRCRAFT & AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERIOA. (UAW-CIO). Case No. 7-CA-633. June 13,•1952 Decision and Order Upon a charge duly filed August 13, 1951, and an amended charge- filed November 5, 1951, by International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft & Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW- CIO), herein called the Union, the General Counsel of the National; Labor Relations Board, herein called the General Counsel, by the- Regional Director for the Seventh Region, issued a complaint dated December 19, 1951, against Louis Rose Company, herein called the- Respondent, alleging inter alia that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) and Section 8 (a) (5) of the Act: Copies of the- complaint, the charge, and notice of hearing were duly served upon the Respondent and the Union. With respect to the unfair labor practice, the complaint alleges, in substance, that on or about July 27, 1951, and on numerous occasions thereafter, the Respondent refused, and now refuses, to bargain col- lectively with the Union as a representative of an appropriate unit of its employees. On December 31, 1951, the Respondent filed an an- swer admitting, among other allegations, the allegation that it re- fused, and refuses, to bargain. In further answer the Respondent alleged that it is not engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act and is therefore not subject to the Act. Thereafter all parties entered into a stipulation which set forth an agreed statement of facts. The stipulation provides that the parties thereby waived their rights to a hearing and to the taking of testimony before a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board. The stipulation further provides that, upon such stipulation and the record as therein provided, the Board may make findings of fact, conclusions of law, and may issue its Decision and Order as if the same facts had been adduced in open hearing before a duly author- ized Trial Examiner of the Board. The aforesaid stipulation is hereby approved and accepted and made a part of the record in this case. In accordance with Section 203.45 of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations, 99 NLRB No. 105.