The Roberts Brass Manufacturing Co.

THE ROBERTS BRASS MANUFACTURING COMPANY 49 The Roberts Brass Manufacturing Company 1 and International Union of Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers, CIO , Petitioner. Case No. 35-RC-1157. September 12, 1955 DECISION AND ORDER Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before John W. Hines, hearing of- ficer. 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 organizations involved claim to represent employees of the Employer. 3. No 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, for the following rea- sons: The Employer and Roberts Brass Workers Alliance, Incorporated, an incorporated labor organization, herein called the Intervenor, as- sert that a collective-bargaining agreement signed by them on August 9, 1954, and effective to July 1, 1956, is a bar to this proceeding. The Petitioner contends that the contract is not a bar because of a schism within, and the legal dissolution and defunctness of, the Intervenor. The pertinent facts are as follows : In March 1955 Robert Abel and William Terrell, then president and vice president, respectively, of the Intervenor, headed a group of employees who were dissatisfied with the Intervenor and desired representation by the CIO. Terrell communicated with representa- tives of the Petitioner for the purpose of learning what procedure would have to be followed for dissolution of the Intervenor and affilia- tion with the Petitioner. After several conferences with officers of the Intervenor, Charles Snodgrass, international representative of the Petitioner, prepared a resolution dissolving the Intervenor and affiliat- ing with the CIO, and delivered this resolution together with CIO af- filiation cards to the dissident officers on April 4. On the same day, at a regularly called meeting of the Intervenor 2 attended by 43 employees in the contract unit, approximately one-half of the total membership, the resolution was read to the membership and a vote was taken to disband the Intervenor and affiliate with the Petitioner. The vote was 42 to 1 in favor of the resolution. As soon as the vote was taken, the Petitioner's representatives, Snodgrass and 1 The Employer's name appears as amended at the hearing. 2 A posted announcement of the meeting did not state that one of its purposes was to vote on a change of affiliation 114 NLRB No. 18. 50 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Henderson, were summoned to the meeting hall and virtually assumed control of the proceedings. They addressed the meeting, spoke in favor of the CIO, and distributed the Petitioner's membership cards among the employees present. At the close of the meeting, Snodgrass made various changes in the minutes of the meeting as originally recorded by the secretary of the Intervenor. After the April 4 meeting, Snodgrass personally made several trips and telephone calls to the office of the secretary of state of Indiana concerning the dissolution of the Intervenor. Thereafter; he further advised the officers of the Intervenor concerning the details of the dis- solution and informed them that, under the corporation law of Indiana, it would be necessary to hold another meeting and give 10 days' notice of the dissolution action. A meeting for this purpose was set for, April 28,1955.3 At the April 28 meeting Snodgrass and Henderson were present throughout the proceedings and made speeches urging the dissolution of the Intervenor and affiliation with the Petitioner. After these speeches a vote was taken on a resolution of dissolution, also prepared by Snodgrass, and it passed by a vote of 47 to 12. The following day the Petitioner notified the Employer that it represented a majority of the employees in the contract unit. On May 6, 1955, the Petitioner filed the instant petition. The Employer declined to recognize the Petitioner in view of its contract with the Intervenor. Thereafter, about six employees in the contract unit arranged and publicized a meeting of all "loyal" members of the Intervenor to be. held on May 16 for the purpose of electing new officers and keeping their union functioning. Shortly after this meeting started, the Peti- tioner's representatives arrived at the meeting hall in the company of the defecting officers of the Intervenor. There were about 40 employees present and Curtis Applegate served as chairman - of the meeting. Without any introduction, Snodgrass took charge of the meeting and asked those members of the Intervenor who had called the meeting to stand up. When they did so, they were asked to leave the meeting. Thereupon, about 12 to 20 employees left the meeting and no further attempt at that time was made to elect new officers.4 On May 24,1955, a grievance concerning an employee in the contract unit was filed and signed by President Abel of the Intervenor, and on 8 On April 19, Snodgrass met with officers of the Intervenor in a grocery store near the plant. The persons present decided formally to dissolve the Intervenor 's organization in .compliance with the State law A resolution prepared by Snodgrass was presented to the officers for their signatures . He also gave the officers the notice of the special meeting to be called on April 28 4 Following the April 28 meeting, the dissident officers of the Intervenor proceeded to dissolve the Intervenor by refunding all monies to the members and filing a certificate of ,dissolution with the secretary of state On May 25, these officers, with the assistance of the Petitioner' s representative , allegedly achieved dissolution of the Intervenor and, on May 27 notified the Employer of the action , requesting that no further checkoff of dues should be made in the name of the organization. THE ROBERTS BRASS MANUFACTURING COMPANY 51 May 26 this grievance was discussed at a meeting with the Employer attended by all officers of the Intervenor. The terms of the grievance settlement were signed by the Intervenor's president and initialed by the Employer's personnel director a few days before the hearing. At the time of the hearing on June 1, 1955, 75 employees within the bargaining unit had dues checkoff cards on file with the Employer. Although such cards are revocable by the individual employees, at no time since April 1 has the Employer received any revocation notices from employees in the contract -unit, and the Employer continues to deduct such dues in behalf of the Intervenor. So far as the present status of the Intervenor is concerned, it appears that, although the Intervenor was rendered temporarily ineffective following the vote to disband on April 28, it has retained or regained many of its old members and is continuing to administer the current contract with the Employer by whom-it is still recognized as the bar- gaining representative of the employees in the contract unit.' We find, therefore, that the Intervenor is still a functioning organization.6 in certain cases the Board has found that when employees covered by a contract vote to disaffiliate from the contracting union, that action in the context of an intraunion split of serious proportions creates a schism which causes confusion in the bargaining relationship between the employer and the representative of his employees, so that the con- tract no longer serves to promote industrial stability and thus should not bar an immediate election. However, it is well established that the Board will not permit the "schism" doctrine to be used to facilitate raiding by a rival union? Nor will it accord any validity to a formal- ized disaffiliation proceeding when the meetings of the contracting union are controlled by a rival labor organization. Apart from other considerations, the evidence is clear that the meetings of April 4 and 28, upon which the claim of schism is founded were completely domi- nated by the Petitioner, and that the Petitioner's representatives were actually the moving force behind the purported schismatic movement. 5 After the close of the hearing, the Intervenor filed a request for a further hearing for the purpose of proving that since the original hearing, 28 employees had met and elected new officers of the Intervenor who have negotiated wage changes with the Employer pur- suant to a wage reopening provision in the current contract, and that during the last days of June , 53 of its members had paid current dues. Although the Petitioner opposes the motion for reopening it does not specifically challenge the truth of the allegations set forth by the Intervenor. In view of our determination below, the request for a further hearing is denied 9 The Petitioner also contends that the Intervenor has been legally dissolved as a labor organization in accordance with the corporation law of the State of Indiana , and there- fore that the contract should not be held a bar . We find no merit in this contention. The Board is not concerned with the legality of the corporate dissolution action. It suffices for the purpose of this proceeding that the Intervenor remains a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act and that it is actually functioning in that ca- pacity. Cf. Aleo Manufacturing Company, 109 NLRB 1297, 1303; New York Shipbuild- ing Corporation, 89 NLRB 915, 916. 4 The Weatherhead Company, 108 NLRB 717, 720. 387644-56-vol. 114-5 52 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Thus, as the Petitioner actively assisted and directed the dissident em- ployees of the Intervenor in their effort to affiliate with the rival union, we are convinced and find that the April 4 and 28 meetings do not warrant the application of the Board's schism doctrine.' In view of the foregoing, we find that the 1954 contract between the Employer and the Intervenor is a bar to an election at the present time. Accordingly, we shall-dismiss the petition. [The Board dismissed the petition.] "Barton Distilling Company, 106 NLRB 361, 364 ; Bendix Products Division, 98 NLRB 1180, 1182. The Belden Brick Company and Robert W. Householder,' Peti- tioner and United Brick and Clay Workers of America, Local 809, A. F. L. Case No. 9-RD-1445. September 12, 1955 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a decertification petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Orville E. Andrews, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. The Union contends that the petition herein should be-dismissed on the ground that the Employer allegedly instigated the filing of the petition. The record shows that : During a strike called by the Union at the Employer's Somerset, Ohio, plant, the only one involved herein, the employees, including the Petitioner, voted to return to work; the next day, when the employees sought to enter the plant, they found a picket line had been established by the Union with employees from other plants of the Employer; the Somerset employees did not attempt to cross the picket line; Metzgar, the Employer's superintendent at Somerset, thereupon, advised the Petitioner that one way the em- ployees could get back to work would be to decertify the Union and that this would necessitate a trip to Cincinnati, Ohio; Petitioner re- 'tained local counsel, who aided him in preparing the instant petition; Petitioner borrowed 20 dollars from Metzgar, which was later repaid, to defray the expense of a trip to the Board's Regional Office in Cin- cinnati to file the instant petition, but did not disclose to Metzgar the purpose of the loan; and Metzgar frequently made loans to employees. While it appears from the foregoing that the Employer, through Metzgar, suggested to the Petitioner the filing of a decertification petition, we find that the Petitioner and the other employees adopted this suggestion solely because they thought it would prevent the Union 1 The Petitioner's name appears as amended at the hearing. 114 NLRB No. 13.