Franklin Throwing Co.

FRANKLIN THROWING COMPANY 153 FRANKLIN THROWING COMPANY and UNITED TEXTILE WORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL, PETITIONER. Case No. 4-RC-1630. October 29, 1952 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 Bernard Samoff, 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 organizations involved claim to represent certain em- ployees of the Employer. 3. A 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. Since 1947 the Intervenor had bargained with the Employer for the employees of its Franklin Street, Old Forge, Pennsylvania, plant. The 1-year contract executed as of August 1, 1948,2 as extended, is urged by the Intervenor as a bar to the petition for the contract unit, filed June 12, 1952.3 The Petitioner contends that a schism has devel- oped in the contracting union and that the contract therefore cannot bar an immediate election. Local 966 of the Intervenor, comprised of employees of this Em- ployer, held a special meeting on Saturday, June 7, 1952, at the Local's customary meeting place. A letter giving notice of this meeting bore the local president's signature, was dated June 3, and was mailed to ' Early in the hearing the Intervenor, Textile Workers Union of America , CIO, objected to the case being heard at that time in the absence of counsel who usually represents it. We agree that the hearing officer properly overruled this objection ; we note , as he observed, that counsel in question had previously acquiesced in the hearing date. Likewise we see no prejudice to the Intervenor in the incorporation In this record of certain relevant testimony and exhibits in Duplan Corporation, 4-RC-1625, concerning schism within the Intervenor at the joint board and international levels. 3 This contract contained a union-security clause the legality of NNhich we do not pass upon because of our finding below. 3 A letter dated August 22, 1949, signed by both parties , extended the contract to March 15, 1950, with a provision that either party might amend or terminate by 60-day notice. The record contains no reference to notice to amend or terminate having been given. On May 15, 1951 , an agreement between the Intervenor and six employers , members of the Wyoming Valley Throwsters Labor Committee , specifically extended existing Individual contracts between the Intervenor and each individual employer , one of whom was this Employer , to March 15, 1954. Under existing Board rules the August 1, 1948, contract between the Intervenor and this Employer, so extended , may constitute a bar during the first 2 years of the 1951 extension. Interstate Brack Company, 91 NLRB 1428. 101 NLRB No. 49. 154 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD all members. It stated the purpose of the meeting as "whether to remain with the Textile Workers Union of America, CIO." Several days before the meeting a handwritten notice of the meeting, also stating the purpose, was posted on the plant bulletin board, where the Union customarily posts its notices. At the meeting the president, who had recently attended the TWUA, CIO convention as a delegate from the Local, reported on "the issues that were then dividing" the Union. Forty members attended 4 and voted unanimously to disaffil- iate from the CIO and affiliate with the AFL, as well as to retain the same officers until the expiration of their terms. Testimony was not refuted that "all employees" attended the meeting. Apparently 30 to 40 was the average attendance at meetings. At the time of hearing, forms had been executed in connection with the group's application for a charter from the Petitioner. There was testimony that no em- ployees were CIO members at the time of hearing, and that although no formal grievances had been processed since the June 7 meeting, at least one matter had been straightened out by the Employer with the officers representing the AFL group. The Employer testified that checked-off dues were being held in escrow. The Employer is neutral with respect to the contract bar issue. On the above facts we conclude that Local 966 of the Intervenor is defunct for all practical purposes. In view of this and the scope of the disaffiliation action taken by the employees, resulting in confusion in the bargaining relationship, we find that the existing contract is not a bar to an immediate election.5 4. The Employer and the Petitioner stipulated that a production and maintenance unit of the Employer's employees is appropriate. The Intervenor did not object to this unit but would not join in the stipulation. It appears that this Employer has engaged since 1951 in a form of multiemployer bargaining. In this regard the record shows that a committee known as the Wyoming Valley Throwsters Labor Committee, consisting of six employers," originated in Febru- ary 1951. Testimony by this Employer that the Intervenor had sug- gested this group bargaining principally to negotiate a welfare fund for the employees of these six employers, all of whom the Intervenor has represented, was not refuted. It also appears that the Committee has no formal organization, no officers, no written rules or bylaws, and that it does not bind any member.? The Committee's meetings with 4 The number in the unit was estimated as 40 to 60 , with not more than 25 working at the time of the June 7 meeting due to a slack period. S Ordali Foundry ,k Manufacturing Co., Inc., 98 NLRB 412; see also Wade Manufactur- ing Company, 100 NLRB 1135. 6 The six employers were : Franklin Throwing Company, Hess-Goldsmith & Co., Inc., Kerstetter Silk Throwing Co., Inc., Leon-Ferenbach, Incorporated, Liberty Throwing Co., Inc., and Plains Throwing Co., Inc. T Testimony in pending cases involving other employers in this group shows that any member may withdraw on 24 hours ' notice. TYRRELL COUNTY LUMBER COMPANY 155 the Intervenor early in 1951 resulted in a contract, dated May 15, 1951, and signed by each of the six employers and each of the Intervenor's locals involved, which covered the welfare fund and a wage raise, and extended for 3 years the existing individual contracts of each em- ployer with the Intervenor. This multiemployer agreement contains no reference to hours, holidays, vacations, seniority, and similar mat- ters customarily covered in complete collective bargaining contracts, unless the extension clause is considered to have incorporated each individual contract by reference. However, apart from any signifi- cance that the type of contract may have, we conclude that the evidence as to the reason for joint bargaining, the method employed, and the relatively short period involved, show a lack of real intent by the contracting parties to bargain on a multiemployer basis.8 In view of these facts we find the unit requested appropriate. Accordingly we find that all production and maintenance employees of the Employer at its Franklin Street, Old Forge, Pennsylvania, plant, excluding executives, foremen, clerical employees, guards, watchmen, and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the mean- ing of Section 9 (b) of the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this volume.] 8 See Jewish Bakery Association, 100 NLRB 1245; compare Taylor ci Boggis Foundry Division of the Consolidated Iron-Steel Manufacturing Company, 98 NLRB 481. TYRRELL COUNTY LUMBER COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL Woon- WORKERS OF AMERICA. Case No. 11-CA-317 (formerly 34-CA-317). October 30,195. Decision and Order On March 26, 1952, Trial Examiner John H. Eadie issued his In- termediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Re- spondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Inter- mediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed ex- ceptions to' the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief.' I The Union filed a motion with the Board requesting that the record be reopened for the purpose of receiving further evidence concerning the nature of the Respondent's offer of reinstatement on December 10, 1951. However, no showing was made that the proffered evidence was not available either to the Union or the General Counsel at the time of the bearing. Accordingly , the motion is denied. 101 NLRB No. 44.