International Harvester Co.

276 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIA- TION OF MACHINISTS , LODGE No. 55, AFL, PETITIONER. Case No. 10- RC-2887. January 01, 1955 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 Edwin R. Hancock, 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 meaning of the Act. 2. The labor organization involved claims 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. The Employer contends that its contract with Federal Labor Union No. 24105, AFL,' is a bar to this proceeding. The Petitioner argues, however, that the contract is no bar as FLU is now defunct. Since its certification by the Board in 1946, FLU has entered into sev- eral bargaining agreements with the Employer. The current contract, which is herein raised as a bar, was executed on February 28 1952, and carries a February 28, 1957, termination date.2 The record shows that employee support of FLU declined over a period of several years, culminating in a union meeting on April 1, 1954, at which all remain- ing members of the union either formally withdrew or were suspended for nonpayment of dues. Since that meeting, FLU has had no of- ficers or members, has collected no dues, has failed to pay its per capita dues to the AFL, and has engaged in no activities whatsoever. The record further shows that there was at the time of the hearing no intention to revive FLU, which despite its nonpayment of per capita dues, had not then had its charter revoked by the AFL. FLU did not appear, nor did it request to appear, at the hearing or at any other stage of this proceeding. In view of the foregoing, we find that FLU is defunct and that, consequently, its outstanding contracts with the Employer are no bar to this proceeding.,' Accordingly, it is unneces- i Hereinafter referred to as FLU Membership in FLU was limited to employees of the Employer at its Knoxville, Tennessee , motortruck service station. 2 In addition to their basic contract, the Employer and FLU also entered into certain other independent agreements in 11952 or earlier which dealt with limited matters such as health and welfare and pension plans . At the time of the hearing, the employees were still participating in the programs provided in these agreements and enjoying any result- ing benefits 3 Arthur C. Harvey Company, 110 NLRB 338. 111 NLRB No. 15. CORNELL-DUBILIER ELECTRIC CORPORATION 277 sary to consider whether the contract is not a bar on any other basis urged by the Petitioner. The Employer further contends that should the Board direct an election herein that such election should be limited to determining whether or not the Petitioner should administer the existing contracts covering the requested unit. However, we find it unnecessary in this proceeding to pass upon this issue.' 4. We find, in accordance with the stipulation of the parties that the following employees of the Employer constitute a unit appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act: All mechanics, mechanics' helpers, apprentices, and leadmen at the Employer's Knoxville, Tennessee, motortruck service station, exclud- ing clerical employees, guards, all other employees at the Employer's Knoxville motortruck branch of the Nashville motortruck sales dis- trict, assistant foremen, foremen, the manager, and all other super- visors as defined in the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] * Wales-Strippit Corporation, 110 NLRB 951 ; Arthur C Harvey Company, supra; Bos- ton Machrne Works Company, 89 NLRB 59 Chairman Farmer deems the issue presented here substantially different from that of the Boston Machine case, and therefore, though agreeing with the majority decision herein, finds it unnecessary to rely upon the rule of that decision. Member Rodgers believes that under the circumstances of this case, if the Petitioner is certified as a result of the election directed herein, it should be deemed to assume the rights and obligations conferred by the existing contract. CORNELL-DUBILIER ELECTRIC CORPORATION and INTERNATIONAL UNION OF ELECTRICAL, RADIO AND MACHINE WORKERS , CIO. Case No. 11-CA-642. January 24,1955 Decision and Order On August 25, 1954, Trial Examiner John C. Fischer, issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent 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 Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent and the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and supporting briefs. The Board 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 Interme- diate Report, the exceptions and supporting briefs of the Respondent 111 NLRB No. 46.