Safrit Lumber Co., Inc.

550 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 5. It appears that District 5, IFLWU, has participated in bar- gaining for the employees involved. In the case of Safrit Lumber C_o., 108 NLRB 550, the Board has found that District 5 is a labor organization which is required to comply with the filing requirements of Section 9 (f), (g), and (h) of the Act. The In- tervenor's placement on the ballot is conditioned upon District 5 IFLWU as well as Local 310 IFLWU and IFLWU being in compliance with the filing requirements of the Act. If any one of these organizations fails to meet the requirements, the Intervenor's name will not appear on the ballot. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] Member, Peterson, concurring: I think it is unnecessary to apply the schism doctrine in this case. It appears to me somewhat strained to hold that the 1950 expulsion of the Intervenor by the CIO bears a causal relation- ship to the disaffiliation action of the employees in 1953. In this connection, I note that the employees in 1952 were agreeable to having the Intervenor continue as their bargaining repre- sentative as evidenced by the current contract negotiated in their behalf. Doubtless the indictment of Ben Gold, the Intervenor's international president , was the proximate cause of the dis- affiliation movement. But I question whether that brings the case within the Board ' s schism doctrine. However, I concur in the result reached by my colleagues because the contract asserted as a bar is about to expire. The effective date of the automatic renewal clause is less than 30 days away, and the termination date is July 13, 1954. SAFRIT LUMBER COMPANY, INC. and INTERNATIONAL FUR & LEATHER WORKERS UNION OF THE U. S. AND CANADA, Petitioner. Case No. 11-RC-583. April 23, 1954 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 Lewis Wolberg, a 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 mean- ing of the Act.' 'Chairman Farmer and Member Rodgers concur in the asserting of jurisdiction in this case, but are not to be deemed thereby as agreeing with the Board's past jurisdictional standards as a permanent policy. In asserting jurisdiction Member Murdock and Peterson rely on Stanislaus Implement and Hardware Company, Ltd., 91 NLRB 618 108 NLRB No. 42. SAFRIT LUMBER COMPANY, INC. 551 2. The Petitioner is a labor organization which claims to represent certain employees of the Employer. The Petitioner was represented at the hearing by its Inter- national Representative John Russell who also has the title of Director of District 5, International Fur & Leather Workers Union of the United States and Canada . Russell stated that no organization subordinate to the Petitioner was involved in this proceeding . He gave testimony , however , concerning District 5 and District Council 5. This testimony reveals that District 5 , when first established, functioned as a labor organization , holding conferences and conventions , electing its own officers and making its own policies , receiving per capita tax from various local unions which were part of the District , and acting to negotiate contracts and organize workers. District Council 5 was the governing body of the District between yearly conventions , and the Council's officers were, in effect , an exgcutive committee for District 5. The position of district director was filled by ap- pointment by the international president ; and the position of secretary -treasurer of the District was filled by election at district conventions . According to Russell , however , District 5 went out of existence as a functioning organization about 1951 or 1952 and is now merely a geographical designation of part of the Petitioner . District Council 5 , too, Russell testified, is defunct and met last in 1949 or 1950. The locals in the District now pay per capita tax directly to the Petitioner and the Petitioner finances District 5. Russell's further testimony shows, however , that the charter issued to District 5 has not been revoked ; that an active bank account exists in the name of District 5 on which Russell and Nathaniel Long may execute checks in their respective capac- ities as director and secretary -treasurer of District 5; that an international representative and organizer is paid by check drawn on the District 5 bank account; that District 5 receives rent for office space which it lets to a local union; that District 5 carries out the policies of the Petitioner as far as organizing or negotiations are concerned ; and that Russell , as international representative , continues to organize workers , negotiate con- tracts, and settle grievances for employees , using his title of district director ; that Russell uses District 5 letterheads in communications to employers ; and that there have been con- ferences inside the District since 1949 or 1950 of groups of locals for the purpose of discussing wage negotiations involving the locals. Moreover , Board records show that District 5 has recently filed an unfair labor practice charge in another case. II In view of the above, we conclude that District 5 continues to function as a labor organization as it did in its earlier period. We find that District 5 and District Council 5 are the same entity and constitute a labor organization within the meaning of Sec- 2 Nelson Tanning Co., Case No. 39-CA-365. 552 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD tion 2 (5) of the Act which is required to comply with the filing provisions of Section 9 (f), (g), and (h) of the Act.' Accordingly, the holding of the election directed herein is conditioned on the compliance of District 5 with the filing re- quirements of the Act. The direction of election is also subject to the notice to show cE.use which the Board issued April 20, 1954 , concerning the compliance status of International Fur & Leather Workers Union of United States and Canada. No election shall be held unless District 5 and the Petitioner are in com- pliance. 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerningthe rep- resentation of employees of the Employer withinthe meaning of Section 9 ( q) and Section 2 (6) and ( 7) of the Act. 4. The Employer is engaged in cutting , buying, processing, and selling lumber . The Petitioner seeks a unit of all main- tenance and production employees . Although the Employer stated that it would take no position concerning the appropriate unit, there was agreement -between the parties on exclusions from the unit . We find that all maintenance and production employees at the Employer ' s lumber operation located at Beaufort , North Carolina , including the wood employees , truck- drivers, caterpillar drivers, firemen , sawyers in the woods, and sawman, but excluding the woods foreman , the officers of the Employer , office . clerical employees , employees of con- tractors , guards, professional employees , and supervisors as defined in the Act , constitute a unit "appropriate for the pur- poses of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. [Text of Direction of Election' omitted from publication.] Member Beeson took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Direction of Election. 3 See United Tanners , Inc., 103 NLRB 760; Franklin Tanning Company , 104 NLRB 192. 4Subject to the conditions set forth in paragraph numbered 2. DECCA RECORDS, INC. (BRUNSWICK RADIO CORPORATION) and INTERNATIONAL UNION OF ELECTRICAL, RADIO AND MACHINE WORKERS, CIO, Petitioner . Case No. 35-RC- 888. April 23, 1954 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION and CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES On February 2, 1954 , Hearing Officer Clifford L. Hardy duly issued and served on the parties his report on objections to conduct affecting election in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the evidence did not support the Petitioner's ob- 108 NLRB No. 76.