Benjamin Air Rifle Co.

104 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD BENJAMIN AIR RIFLE COMPANY, Petitioner and UNITED ELECTRICAL, RADIO AND MACHINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL 11281 and INTERNATIONAL UNION OF ELECTRICAL, RADIO AND MACHINE WORKERS, CIO, LOCAL 828.2 Case No. 14-RM-93. November 18, 1953 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 Harry G. Carlson, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. 3 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 UE contends that a collective -bargaining contract signed on December 12, 1952, and effective to December 31, 1954, is a bar to this proceeding. The Employer-Petitioner and the IUE-CIO assert that the contract is not a bar because of a schism within the contracting union's ranks and the de- functness of that organization. The Employer-Petitioner has dealt with the UE as bargaining representative of its employees for approximately 15 years. At a regular meeting of the UE on June 5, 1953, Otto Miller, its president, asked the membership to support him in de- portation proceedings then pending against him. By a vote of 22 to 14, the meeting refused him the requested support. Miller then stated that he would resign from his office because he could not fulfill his duties under the circumstances. UE Vice-President Heisler also declared at this meeting that he would resign and did submit a letter of resignation a few days later. However, neither official actually did resign. This incident sparked to positive action long smoldering resentment against Miller and the UE. With the approval of three-fourths of its membership, a delegation of 8 members of the UE led by its recording-secretary called upon the head of the IUE-CIO in the St. Louis area to discuss disaffiliation from the UE and affiliation with the IUE-CIO. On August 4, 1953, 3 of the 5 members of the UE executive board voted to call a meeting of the membership to consider disaffiliating from the UE and joining the IUE-CIO. On August 5, 1953, 52 of the 54 UE members signed a petition requesting the executive board to call a meeting for this purpose. ' Herein called the UE. 2Herein called the IUE-CIO. s The hearing officer referred to the Board for ruling the UE's motion to dismiss the petition. The motion is denied for the reasons hereinafter stated. 4Miller and Heisler were the other two executive board members . They attended but left when informed of the purpose of the meeting. 107 NLRB No. 38. BENJAMIN AIR RIFLE COMPANY 105 On August 7, 1953, 50 of the 54 members of the UE met at the usual meeting hall to consider the question of disaffiliation. The meeting was chaired by the UE's financial secretary as neither president Miller nor Vice-President Heisler attended. A motion was made from the floor and duly seconded to dis- affiliate from the UE and to affiliate with the IUE. In the ensuing discussion, the area president of the IUE participated. 5 This is the only evidence of participation by IUE representa- tives in the disaffiliation proceedings. A secret ballot on the disaffiliation motion showed a unanimous vote in favor of the motion.' Following the vote, all employees present signed authorization cards for the IUE-CIO and selected temporary officers. Sometime later the new group received a charter from the IUE-CIO. On August 10, 1953, and subsequently, the IUE-CIO re- quested the Employer-Petitioner to recognize it as bargaining representative. At the same time, it expressed its willingness to be bound by the existing collective-bargaining contract between the Employer -Petitioner and the UE. The Employer - Petitioner refused to extend recognition to the IUE-CIO without a Board election as the UE had not abandoned its claim to be recognized as bargaining representative. As the result of the conflicting claims of representation, disturbances occurred within the plant, police had to be called twice to restore order, and production fell to approximately 30 percent of normal. The 4 remaining employees loyal to the UE, in- cluding Miller and Heisler, left their jobs claiming that they had been threatened and intimidated by fellow employees.' As its efforts to restore peace and order were unavailing, the Employer-Petitioner filed the present representation petition. At the present time, the UE has no members among the employees of the Petitioner-Employer. No meetings of the UE's membership or executive board have been held since August 7. No grievances have been processed since that date under the existing collective-bargaining contract. We find that for all practical purposes, the UE is defunct at the plant. Accordingly, we further find that the existing agree- ment is not a bar to a present determination of representa- tives.' s There Is no evidence as to what this IUE representative said at the meeting. Three other officers of the IUE regional organization were present, but apparently did not participate in the discussion. 6 The UE contends that the disaffiliation action was ineffective because it did not conform to the union's constitutional requirements. This contention is without merit. In a representa- tion proceeding the Board is concerned with the fact of schism , and not with the legality of steps taken in pursuance of schismatic action. Kearney & Trecker Corporation, 95 NLRB 1125, 1129. 7 This alleged intimidatory conduct by members of the IUE-CIO was made the subject of an unfair labor practice charge, Case No. 14-CB- 204, which was dismissed by the Regional Director. B Franklin Throwing Company, 101 NLRB 153. We find no merit in the UE 's contention that the employees were estopped from changing their bargaining agent because they had ratified the 1952 contract of the UE and the Employer-Petitioner. 106 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD A question affecting commerce exists concerning the repre- sentation 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 the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act: All production and maintenance employees at the Employer's St. Louis, Missouri , plant including shipping clerks, but excluding office clerical employees , engineers , draftsmen, and supervisors as defined in the Act.9 [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] 9 This is substantially the unit convered by the contract of the Employer and the UE. The parties seem to be in agreement on its appropriateness. CHICOPEE MANUFACTURING CORPORATION and TEXTILE WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA ( CIO), Petitioner. Case No. 13-RC-3325. November 18, 1953 DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF RESULTS On May 8, 1953 , pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election , an election by secret ballot was con- ducted under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region, among employees at the Employer ' s Bensonville , Illinois , plant, in the stipulated unit. Upon the completion of the election , the Regional Director duly issued and served on the parties a tally of ballots, which showed that of approximately 27 eligible voters, 11 voted for the Petitioner , 14 voted against the Petitioner , and no ballots were challenged. On May 11, 1953 , the Petitioner filed objections to conduct affecting the results of the election . On July 3, 1953, the Regional Director issued his report on objections recommend- ing that all objections except objection 1 (a) be overruled and that a hearing be held on all issues raised by objection 1 (a). On July 27, 1953, the Board issued . its order adopting these recommendations and directing that the hearing officer desig- nated for the purpose of conducting the hearing prepare, and cause to be served upon the parties , a report containing resolutions of credibility of witnesses , findings of fact, and recommendations to the Board as to the disposition of the objections. On August 17, 1953, pursuant to the orders of the Board, a hearing was held before Hubert J. Sigal, hearing officer. On October 9, 1953, the hearing officer issued and caused to be served upon all parties his report on objections, with findings and recommendations . The hearing officer found that, 107 NLRB No. 31.