Bellman Brook Bleachery Co.

BELLMAN BROOK BLEACHERY co. 297 Employer as provided in the Act 4 We shall, accordingly, adhere to our customary policy of directing an immediate election. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this volume.] 4 Oliver Iron and Steel Corp., Berry Division, 98 NLRB 20 ; Ford Motor Co., Aircraft Division, 96 NLRB 1075. BELLMAN BROOK BLEACHERY Co. and UNITED TEXTILE WORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL, PETITIONER BELLMAN BROOK BLEACHERY Co. and TEXTILE WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, CIO, UNITED TEXTILE WORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL. Cases Nos. 2-RC-4866 and 2-RM-418. November 13, 1952 Decision and Direction of Election Upon petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before Milton A. Shaham, 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 these cases to a three- member panel [Members Houston, Murdock, and Styles]. Upon the entire record in these cases, 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 Textile Workers Union of America, CIO, herein termed the Textile Workers CIO, and the Employer are parties to a collective- bargaining contract covering the employees in the unit sought herein. This contract was executed October 29, 1951, to be effective as of October 1, 1951, and to extend until September 30, 1953. The Tex- tile Workers CIO contends this contract bars an election at this time. The United Textile Workers of America, AFL, herein termed the Textile Workers AFL, asserts that a schism has occurred preventing the contract from barring the instant petitions. The Employer is neutral on the subject. On or about May 12 or 13, 1952, the executive board of Local 707, which consists of the employees of the Employer's plant, called a special membership meeting of that Local for May 15 to determine whether or not it should remain affiliated with the Textile Workers 101 NLRB, No. 74. 298 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD CIO.' Notices of the meeting were posted on May 12 in the usual places in the plant used for such announcements. The meeting of May 15 was attended by 276 members of the 433 members of the plant. The membership voted unanimously to disaffiliate from the Textile Workers CIO; affiliate with the Textile Workers AFL re- taining the same local officers as before, and notify the Employer of the change in the bargaining relationship. The expressed reason for the disaffiliation was the dissatisfaction of the Local with the results and events of the just concluded national convention of the Textile Workers CIO. On May 22, 1952, the Textile Workers AFL notified the Employer of the disaffiliation action of the Local and claimed recognition as the sole collective-bargaining representative of the plant. The Textile Workers CIO, however, has notified the Employer of its claim of con- tinued recognition as representative of these employees under the contract and has appointed an administrator to service the contract. A few grievances on the lower levels have been processed by the former officers of Local 707 acting in a personal capacity. The Employer has placed receipts for the checkoff dues in escrow and contends that it is in doubt as to which organization is the representa- tive of its employees. For reasons stated in Wade Manufacturing Company, 100 NLRB 1135, we find that a schism has occurred in the ranks of the Textile Workers CIO and its Local 707 directly affecting the employees at the Employer's plant and giving rise to confusion in the bargaining relationship herein by reason of the conflicting claims of the two Unions. Under these circumstances we find the contract between the Employer and the Textile Workers CIO does not bar an election at this time and we find that a question affecting commerce exists con- cerning 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. We find that all production and maintenance employees of the Employer's Fairview, New Jersey, textile plant, including factory clericals, but excluding general office help, watchmen and guards, machine printers, technical employees, professional employees, and I The executive board apparently held a somewhat informal meeting on May 12 which resulted in the calling of the general membership meeting on the 15th . On May 13, is a formal meeting, the executive board itself disaffiliated from the Textile Workers CIO and affiliated with the Textile Workers AFL. 2 The Textile Workers CIO contends that the disaffiliatioh meeting of May 15 was illegally called and consummated . The Board, however, has previously ruled that it will not attempt to ascertain whether or not such movements are in violation of a labor organization's rules and regulations . The Textile Workers CIO also contends that the executive board of Local 707 acted as agents of the Textile Workers AFL placing the disaffiliation action in the category of a raiding expedition by that organization. The record does not sustain this allegation . Finally, in view of the entire record and the scope of the disaffiliation herein , the fact that the contract was in the name of the Textile Workers CIO rather than its Local 707 does not militate against our finding that the contract is no bar to these proceedings. R. & J. UNDERWEAR CO., INC. 299 all supervisors as defined in the Act, as amended, constitute a unit ap- propriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. [Text of Direction of Election 3 omitted from publication in this volume.] + In Its brief, the Intervenor asserts that the Petitioner is "fronting" for a non- complying local union . The fact of compliance by a labor organization , which is required to comply , is a matter for administrative determination and is not litigable by the parties. Moreover, the Board is administratively satisfied that the Petitioner is in compliance. See Sunbeam Corporation, 94 NLRB 844 , 98 NLRB 525; Swift & Company, 94 NLRB 917 ; cf. Highland Park Manufactursng Company, 71 S. Ct. 489. R. & J. UNDERWEAR CO., INC. and AMALGAMATED CLOTHING WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, C . I. O. Case No. 1-CA-1007. November 13, 1952 Decision and Order On June 23,1952, Trial Examiner Lloyd Buchanan issued his Inter- mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief. The Board 1 has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter- mediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the Trial Examiner's findings, conclusions, and recommendations? Order Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations I 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 [ Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Murdock]. I The Trial Examiner found an independent violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act based on the "broad and undetailed" testimony of Union Organizer Costello to the effect that certain supervisors looked out of a plant window while he was distributing union literature. The record contains no other reference to this passing statement by Costello. We do not consider the foregoing sufficient evidence to warrant a conclusion that the Respondent 's representatives unlawfully surveyed Costello or the employees by observing their activities from the window. Accordingly, we do not adopt this particular finding of the Trial Examiner. 101 NLRB No. 86.