Sheller Manufacturing Co.

DRYDEN RUBBER DIVISION OF SHELLER MANUFACTURING CO. 369 issues of IUE-CIO and CIO News. These articles were to the effect that the Union and the CIO supported civil-rights education and legislation. Evidence was presented that on December 11 Foreman Spencer told a group of his employees that he worked in a unionized plant and knew about unions. Among other things he stated that members . of the Union who did not attend meetings were fined. During the afternoon of December 13 there was posted on the bulletin board and circulated among the employees a communication, signed by Babcock, to the effect that it had come to the Company's attention that some employees had been threatened by the Union about the loss of their jobs , a $5,000 fine or a jail sentence if they had signed union cards and did not vote for the Union . The communication went on to say that no one had to vote for the Union even if the employee had signed a card, and asked any employee who received a threat or knew of anyone being threatened to report it to management. In the opinion of the Regional Director, all of the foregoing constitutes the ex- pression of views and opinions privileged by Section 8 (c) of the Act and/or permissible election propaganda, the wisdom or truth of which is for the employees, not the Board, to judge. The Regional Director therefore recommends that thus objection be overruled. In view of the facts set forth above, the Regional Director is of the opinion that the objections filed by the Union do not raise substantial or material issues with respect to the conduct of the election, or conduct affecting the results of the election, and therefore recommends to the Board that they be overruled. Dryden Rubber Division of Sheller Manufacturing Company and United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum & Plastic Workers of America, A)'f,-CIO, Petitioner. Cabe No. 18-RC-3097. June. 27,1957 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 Clarence A. Meter, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed' The Petitioner questions the existence of any contract between the Intervenor and the Employer which may serve (1) as a showing of interest for purposes of intervention, (2) as evidence of the Inter- venor's status as a labor organization, or (3) as a bar to an election of representatives at this time. The questions raised by the Petitioner relate to a prior proceeding 2 involving the same principals as are involved herein. In that case, Chemical Workers Union, Local 437, International Chemical Workers Union, AFL,. petitioned for an elec- tion of representatives. The Petitioner herein intervened on the basis of its then existing contract with-the Employer. During the course of the proceeding, Local 437s charter was revoked by its parent organization, which informed the Board of this fact and requested permission to withdraw the petition filed by Local 437. The Board denied the request, found that the revocation of the charter,. did not 1 For the reasons discussed infra, we find that the hearing officer properly permitted Local 487, Chemical Workers Union, Independent, to intervene on the basis of its current eaist- tug contract with the Empldaer. s Case No . 18-RC-2382, reported at 110 NLRB 1652. 118 NLRB No. 47: 450553-58-vol. 118-25 370 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD affect Local 437's status as a labor organization, and directed an elec- tion,' without requiring any amendment or change in the name under which Local 437 appeared on the ballot. The election resulted in a victory for Local 437, which was accordingly certified by the Board under the name in which it had filed the petition. Thereafter the Employer and the certified union executed the contract introduced into evidence in this proceeding by the Intervenor. The contract bears the name Chemical Workers Union, Local 437, International Chemical Workers Union, AFL, as the contracting union. Subsequently, Local 4,37 notified the Employer that it was no longer affiliated with the AFL and in a later notice that it had affiliated with the National Independent Unions Council. Although the Employer and Local 437 took no steps to amend their agreement to reflect the change in Local 437's affiliation, the record does indicate that thereafter they revised the dues deduction authorization cards to reflect the change in affiliation, which cards were utilized by employees when their prior authorization cards had expired. Furthermore, on January 2, 1957, the Intervenor, under its new name, and the Employer entered into a memorandum of agreement which modified "our Labor Agreement of March 31, 1955 . . . by the addition of a new job classification." The facts here do not indicate a schism or other internal dispute within the certified contracting union resulting in the establishment of a new union to challenge the representative status of the certified con- tracting union. Rather they show that the change in character and status of the certified contracting union is merely one of designation and affiliation. There is no question of its continuing and current rep- resentative status.3 Under these circumstances, we are of the opinion. that the 1955 contract is a valid and subsisting agreement between the Intervenor and the Employer .4 Accordingly we find that the issues raised by the Petitioner with respect to the 1955 contract are lacking in merit. We also find that the hearing officer properly per- mitted Chemical Workers Union, Local 437, Independent, to intervene in this proceeding on the basis of the 1955 contract. 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.' s We reject Petitioner's contention that the certified contracting union is defunct. b Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Company of Baltimore, 89 NLRB 231 ; New Jersey Oyster Planters and Packers Association, Inc., 101 NLRB 538; Thompson Wire Com- pany, 116 NLRB 1933, 1936. 51n view of the introduction of the 1955 contract between the Intervenor and the Em- ployer, we find no merit in the Petitioner's contention that the record contains no evi- dence of the Intervenor 's status as a labor organization within the meaning of the Act. The change in the Iutervenor's affiliation did not affect such status . See Dryden Rubber Division, Sheller Manufacturing Corporation, 110 NLRB 1652. THE BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY OF PENNSYLVANIA 371 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.' 4. The parties agree and we find that the following employees of the Employer's Keokuk, Iowa, plant 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, excluding office clerical employees, plant clerical employees, laboratory employees, technical employees, sales employees, medical department employees, all other office employees, watchmen and guards, professional employees, and supervisors (including leadmen and leads;-omen) as defined in the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] CHAIRMAN LEEDOM and MEMBER JENKINS took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Direction of Election. o After this case was transferred to the Board , the Employer, by letter dated June 12,. 1957, and the Intervenor, by letter dated June 17, 1957, notified the Board that they desired to withdraw . their contract-bar claim . Accordingly, as the parties are now in agreement as to the desirability of holding an election at this time , we find, without considering the merits of the original contract-bar.claim , that the contract does not bar an election. The Bell Telephone Company of Pennsylvania , Petitioner and Pennsylvania Telephone Union, Local Union No. 1944, IBEW, AFL-CIO.' Case No. 4-RM-181. June 27,1957 DECISION AND ORDER Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Herbert B. Mintz, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. On Febuary 9, 1956, the Board granted leave to each of the following labor organizations to file a brief avnicus c a riae : Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO, Alliance of Independent Telephone LTnions, Engineers and Scientists of America, and International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO. Such briefs were filed on or before March 8, 1956, and a reply memorandum was re- ceived from the Employer on April 3, 1956. On September 12, 1956, the Board granted the request of the Union for oral argument. On , After the close of the hearing, counsel for the Union sent a letter to the Board, with copies to all parties, advising that the Union, which was formerly known as Pennsylvania Telephone Union, affiliated with Alliance of Independent Telephone Unions , effective as of April 2, 1956, affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO. Since there has been no opposition , we have changed the Union 's name as in- dicated above. 118 NLRB No. 44.