International Harvester Co.

600 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD men operate the hybrid presses which combine both the letterpress and the offset process.4 The Employer is cur- rently endeavoring to train all pressmen to operate both types of equipment and has offered a bonus to those who are able to operate more than one piece of such equipment. Where, as here, there is a considerable degree of integra- tion between the letterpress employees and those in the lithographic process, and no party seeks to represent sepa- rately the lithographic employees, we have recognized that these employees have related interests and may constitute a separate unit.5 Moreover, the record, in our opinion, fails to reveal such close integration of functions and interchange of employees between these departments and the remainder of the Employer's operations as to preclude their separate representation. We find that all employees in the pressrooms, both offset and letterpress, and in the camera and plate department of the Employer at its Houston, Texas, plant, including all pressmen, both letter and offset pressmen, their helpers, apprentices, operators, cameramen, strippers, platemakers, plate proofreaders, and plate file clerk, but excluding all other employees, office employees, guards, watchmen, and all supervisors within the meaning of the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication. 4 Apparently three hybrid or combination presses have been acquired by the Employer since the Amalgamated Lithographers of America sought, and the Board found, a unit of the Employer's lithographic production employees appropriate. The Rein Company, Case No. 39-RC-270, decided February 12, 1951 (not reported in printed volumes of Board DecIsions and Orders). A total of 50 percent of the Employer's printing production is done on these hybrid or combination presses. 5 Master-Craft Corporation, 92 NLRB 524; Messenger Corporation, 94 NLRB No. 86 (not reported in printed volumes of Board Decisions and Orders). INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER COMPANY, EAST MOLINE WORKS and INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMO- BILE, AIRCRAFT AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO' AND ITS FE LOCAL 104 UAW-CIO., 2 Petitioner iHereinafter referred to as UAW-CIO. 2 Hereinafter referred to as 104 UAW. 108 NLRB No. 91. INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER COMPANY, EAST MOLINE WORKS 601 INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER COMPANY, EAST MOLINE WORKS and INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMO- BILE, AIRCRAFT AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO AND ITS FE LOCAL 106 UAW-CIO, 3 Petitioner. Cases Nos. 13-RC-3542 and 13-RC- 3575. April 29, 1954 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9 ( c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before John P. Von Rohr , hearing officer . The hearing offi- cer'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. 2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain employees of the Employer.' 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representation of employees of the Employer within the mean- ing of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 ( 6) and ( 7) of the Act. In Case No. 13-RC-3575, the Petitioner, UAW-CIO and 106 UAW, seeks to represent a unit of machine repair , experi- mental , and toolroom employees , hereinafter referred to as the machinists' unit. In Case No. 13-RC - 3542 , the Petitioner, UAW-CIO and 104 UAW, seeks to represent all other pro- duction and maintenance employees of the East Moline Works. The Employer and the Intervenors, 104 UE and 106 UE, con- tend that their current master contract covering the employees in both units constitutes a bar to both petitions . The Petitioners contend that the contract is not a bar because there have been schisms in both units leading to confusion as to the identity of the representative of such units . IAM took no position as to contract bar. Until 1949 the parent organization of 104 UE was United Farm Equipment and Metal Workers , CIO. In October 1949 United Farm Equipment and Metal Workers became affil- iated with UE. Shortly thereafter, at the annual convention 3Hereinafter referred to as 106 UAW. 4The requests of the Employer and Petitioners for oral argument are hereby denied, as the record and briefs, in our opinion, adequately present the issues and the positions of the parties. 5In Case No. 13-RC-3542, United Farm Equipment and Metal Workers, Local 104, HE, hereinafter referred to as 104 HE, intervened on the basis of a current contractual interest. In Case No. 13-RC-3575, United Farm Equipment and Metal Workers, Local 106 HE, herein- after referred to as 106 UE , intervened on the basis of a current contractual interest, and District Lodge No. 102, International Association of Machinists, AFL, hereinafter referred to as IAM, intervened on the basis of a showing of interest. The hearing officer referred to the Board motions by the Employer, 104 HE, and 106 UE to dismiss the petitions on the ground of contract bar. These motions are denied for the reasons stated in the text. 602 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD of CIO, United Farm Equipment and Metal Workers and UE were expelled from CIO and their certificates of affiliation were revoked.6 The cause of UE's expulsion , as stated in the resolution of expulsion passed at the convention, was the Communist domination of UE and its devotion to principles inconsistent with the policies and objectives of CIO.' After these expulsions , 104 UE continued as a local of United Farm Equipment and Metal Workers, UE. The Intervenor , 104 UE, represented all the production and maintenance employees in a plantwide unit at the East Moline Works from 1941 to July 1952, when, pursuant to a consent election , the machinists ' unit was severed from the plantwide unit. Although 104 UE won this election , it transferred to 106 UE the right to represent the machinists ' unit. Thereafter, 104 UE continued to represent the rest of the production and maintenance employees . On November 15, 1952 , the Em- ployer, UE, and all its locals which represented bargaining units at International Harvester plants entered into a master agreement covering all such units , including the two units here involved. This contract expires on June 30, 1955. On August 9, 1953 , a membership meeting of 106 UE, duly noticed, was held at which disaffiliation from UE was con- sidered. Over half of the members of 106 UE attended and voted 48 to 3 to disaffiliate from UE. All of the officers of 106 UE were present and the meeting was conducted by its president , Lyle Davis. On August 16, 1953, the executive board of 106 UE met and decided to conduct a vote on the following day after work among its members in the machinists ' unit to determine whether they wished to affiliate with UAW -CIO. Notice was given to the members of 106 UE the following day to appear at the headquarters of 104 UE after work to cast a written ballot on this question. The result was a 34 to 7 vote in favor of affiliation with UAW-CIO. On August 23 , 1953, 106 UE held another membership meeting at which a second vote was taken in favor of affiliation with UAW-CIO. On August 16, 1953, a membership meeting -of 104 UE was held pursuant to notice given its members in the usual manner informing them that future affiliation was tobe discussed. This meeting was attended by approximately twice the number usually attending membership meetings . The members voted 45 to 2 to disaffiliate from UE and 42 to 5 to affiliate with UAW-CIO.' 61949 Proceedings of the Eleventh Constitutional Convention of the Congress of Industrial Organizations, pp 302, 327, 334, 347. 7 United Farm Equipment and Metal Workers , which had already affiliated with UE at the time of its expulsion, was separately expelled because it had failed to follow a previous instruction of the CIO executive board to take steps toward affiliation with UAW-CIO. 6 The executive board of 104 UE had previously decided to recommend disaffiliation from UE to its members and had mailed ballots to them to determine their sentiment . However, the mail ballots were not returned and counted until August 24, 1953. The result was a 289 to 30 vote in favor of disaffiliation. This result was never announced to the membership as it had already voted to disaffiliate at the membership meeting on August 16. INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER COMPANY, EAST MOLINE WORKS 603 At both disaffiliation meetings , the belief of the members of 104 UE and 106 UE that UE was Communist dominated was advanced as one of the reasons for disaffiliating from UE. Lyle Davis, president of 106 UE prior to disaffiliation , stated at the 106 UE disaffiliation meeting that he favored disaffiliation because UE was spending too much time and money protecting Com- munists . Glen Roberts , grievance committee chairman of 106 UE, pointed out at that meeting that an overriding factor in the decrease in the membership of 106 UE during the year prior to its disaffiliation was communism in UE. Davis was present at the disaffiliation meeting of 104 UE and stated that "one of the prime reasons of [sic] 106 wanted out of UE was the Communist influence." He advised the members of 104 UE to disaffiliate for that reason. Other officers and members of both locals gave this as a reason in speaking in favor of disaffiliation at both meetings. B After the disaffiliation actions , both locals informed the Employer that they had changed their affiliation to UAW-CIO and identified themselves as 104 UAW and 106 UAW re- spectively. Each requested the Employer to recognize it as the representative of the employees in its respective unit. The Employer refused to recognize either UAW-CIO local. All the officers and stewards of 106 UE joined in the dis- affiliation and since the disaffiliation there has been no ac- tivity by 106 UE. All of the officers of 104 UE, except the grievance committee chairman , as well as a number of its stewards joined in the disaffiliation in that local. Shortly after the disaffiliation , UE removed the disaffected officers and stewards of 104 UE and appointed new officers and stewards. The new officers and stewards have processed grievances and have been recognized by the Employer, although no membership meetings of 104 UE were held from the time of the disaffiliation until the hearing in the instant case. The Board ordinarily does not find that a question con- cerning representation exists when a collective -bargaining contract is in effect. When , however , the Board finds a schism in the contracting union , it will , as an exception to its con- tract-bar rule , direct an immediate election to determine the bargaining agent. 11 In this case , the Board has examined the facts presented and has reviewed its schism doctrine. The 9 The Employer and the UE locals contend that contract dissatisfaction rather than Com- munist domination of UE caused the members of 104 UE and 106 UE to disaffiliate from UE and affiliate with UAW. However, we are satisfied upon the entire record that the same considerations which led to the expulsion of UE from CIO were at least a major factor in the decision of the members of both locals to go over to UAW. In reaching this conclusion, we are aware that the hearing officer rejected some exhibits and offers of proof of the Em- ployer and the UE locals bearing on motive. Assuming that the matter thus sought to be introduced had been admitted in the record, our conclusion would be unaffected. liSee Boston Machine Works Company, 89 NLRB 59; cf. Saginaw Furniture Shops, Inc., 97 NLRB 1488; Allied Container Corp., 98 NLRB 580; Mission Appliance Corporation, 104 NLRB 577. 604 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Board concludes that expulsion of a labor union by its parent organization coupled with disaffiliation action at the local level for reasons related to the expulsion disrupts any es- tablished bargaining relationship between an employer and the local union and creates such confusion that the existing con- tract with such union no longer stabilizes industrial relations between the employer and its employees. The circumstances of this case demonstrate such confusion. Such confusion and instability can only be prolonged by holding the existing con- tract a bar. Accordingly, where the expulsion of a labor organization from its parent has been followed by disaffiliation at the local level for reasons related to the expulsion, as in the instant case , the Board will find that a schism exists which warrants directing in immediate election notwithstanding the existence of a contract with the union suffering the schism which would otherwise bar a determination of representative. Accordingly, we find that the contract between the Employer and the Intervenors 104 UE and 106 UE does not bar this proceeding.ll 4. We find that the following units of employees of the Em- ployer at its East Moline Works, as stipulated by the parties, are appropriate. (A) All production and maintenance employees excluding salaried employees, supervisory employees on hourly rates above the rank of working group leaders, factory clerical employees, office clerical employees, indentured apprentices, student executives, fire and watch employees (except production and maintenance employees who act as volunteer fireman), patternmaker apprentices, designers and trim diemakers, employees of departments 19, 20, and 38 not excluded above, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. (B) All employees of department 19 (machine repair), de- partment 20 ( experimental ), and department 38 (toolroom), 'IA. C. Lawrence Leather-Company, 108 NLRB 546. The Employer contends that the schism doctrine should not be applied in the instant case because the disaffiliation was not coextensive with all the plants covered by its master agree- ment with UE. However, where, as here, the master agreement covers a number of units for which bargaining agents have been separately certified, it is sufficient that the disaffil- iation be coextensive with a single one of the several bargaining units covered by the master agreement. General Electric Company Appliance Service Center, 96 NLRB 566. As each of the disaffiliations in the instant case occurred in such a unit, we find no merit in this contention. Member Rodgers concurs in the direction of elections herein, but finds it unnecessary to decide whether there has been a schism. Instead, he would refuse to recognize the contract of the Intervenors as a bar for reasons of broad public policy. Neither Local 104 UE nor Local 106 UE was in compliance with requirements of Section 9 (h) of the Act when the instant petitions were filed. Moreover, their parent organization, the UE, had previously been expelled from the Congress of Industrial Organizations because of Communist dom- ination. Under these circumstances the availability of theBoard's processes to the Intervenor would not, in Member Rodgers' opinion, effectuate the policies of the Act nor properly serve the interests of national security. In view of our disposition of this case it is not necessary to consider the other reasons advanced by the Petitioners for finding no contract bar. SECURITY ENTERPRISES 605 excluding office clerical employees , diesinkers , trim makers, diesinking and duplicating machine operators , indentured apprentices , guards , and supervisors as defined in the Act. 5. Contrary to the contentions of 104 UE and 106 UE, we do not find that the designation of the UAW- CIO locals on the ballot as 104 UAW and 106 UAW will create confusion in the minds of the voters as to the identity of the participants in the election. Accordingly , we grant the request of the Pe- titioners that their names appear on the ballots as in the caption herein. 12 The hearing officer referred to the Board a motion by 104 UE and 106 UE that any election directed herein should be deferred until a representative complement of employees is employed at the East Moline Works . The record indicates that at the time of the hearing , because of recent layoffs, the number of production and maintenance employees . was about one-third of the number employed at the time of the disaffilia- tion actions described above . The Employer stated that it did not anticipate any substantial change in the number of em- ployees in the immediate future . Accordingly , we see no reasons to defer the election herein directed. Furthermore, as stated in the direction of elections , those employees who have been only temporarily laid off , will be eligible to vote. The motion is therefore denied. [Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.] 12 Sonotone Corporation, 90 NLRB 1236 at 1239. Participation of 104 UE and 106 UE in the elections directed herein is conditioned upon their compliance with Section 9 (f), (g), and (h) of the Act. SECURITY ENTERPRISES DIVISION OF INDIANAPOLIS WIRE BOUND BOX COMPANY and LOCAL 135 , INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS , CHAUFFEURS, WARE- HOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA , AFL, Petitioner. Case No . 35-RC-944. April 29, 1954 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND DIRECTION On January 8, 1954 , pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election issued by the Board in the above -entitled case,' an election was conducted , under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director , among truckdrivers at the Employer's Indianapolis , Indiana, plywood manufacturing and sales plant in the unit found appropriate . Following the election , the Re- gional Director issued and served upon the parties a tally of' ballots , which shows that, of the 7 ballots cast in the election, ' Not reported in printed volumes of Board Decisions and Orders. 108 NLRB No. 97.