Textron, Inc.

DALMO VICTOR COMPANY DIVISION OF TEXTRON, INC. 737 Therefore, upon the evidence as a whole, I find that on or about February 15, 1957, and at all times thereafter , the Company has refused, and is refusing, to bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive representative of its employees in an appropriate unit , and has thereby interfered with, restrained , and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Company set forth in section III, above, occurring in con- nection with the operations of the Company described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY Having found that the Company has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, it will be recommended that the Company cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Having also found that the Union represented, and now represents, a majority of the employees in the appropriate unit, and that the Company has refused to bargain collectively with it, the Trial Examiner will recommend that the Company upon request bargain collectively with the Union. Upon the basis of the above findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case, the Trial Examiner makes the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Los Angeles Joint Board, Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 2. All spreaders and cutters employed by the Company at its San Fernando plant, excluding all other production employees, shipping and office employees, maintenance employees, bundle girls, the patternmakei-cutter and all other super- visors as defined in the Act, form a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining. 3. The above-named Union was on February 11, 1956, and at all times thereafter has been and is, the exclusive representative of all the employees in the aforesaid unit for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (a) of the Act. 4. By refusing on February 15, 1957, and at all times thereafter to bargain collec- tively with the Union as the exclusive representative of all its employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit, the Company has engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (5) of the Act, as amended. 5. By the aforesaid refusal to bargain, the Company has interfered with, re- strained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, and has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act, as amended. 6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com- merce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. [Recommendations omitted from publication.] Dalmo Victor Company Division of Textron, Inc. and E. A. Math- ews, Petitioner and International Union of Guards and Watch- men (Ind.). Case No. 20-RD-166. December 12, 1957 DECISION AND ORDER Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Robert M. Yeates, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. 119 NLRB No. 100. 476321-58-vol. 119-48 738 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three- member panel [Members Murdock, Rodgers, and Bean]. 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 Petitioner, an employee of the Employer, asserts that the Union is no longer the bargaining representative, as defined in Sec- tion 9 (a) of the Act, of the guard employees designated in the peti- tion. The Union contends that a bargaining contract between the Employer and Guards and Watchmen's Union, Seafarers Union of North America, AFL-CIO, hereafter called Guards-Seafarers, which covers the Employer's guards, bars the instant petition. The Employer contends that the contract is not a bar. The Employer is engaged in the manufacture of electronic equipment at its plant in Belmont, California. On August 24, 1956, the Board decided in Plant Protection Com- pany, Case No. 21-RC-3126,1 that, in accordance with Section 9 (b) (3) of the Act, Guards-Seafarers was ineligible for Board certifica- tion as a guards' representative because of its affiliation with an organization which admitted to membership employees other than guards. As a direct result of this decision, and solely in order to make itself eligible for Board certification, Guards and Watchmen's Union disaffiliated from Seafarers Union of North America and from the AFL-CIO, A new constitution and new bylaws were adopted, and a new independent union, whose name appears in the caption of this case, was formed. This is the Union designated in the petition herein. The persons who were the officers of Guards-Seafarers con- tinued, after the disaffiliation, as officers of the new union, which does not now admit to membership any employees other than guards. Fol- lowing the foregoing change in affiliation, all five guards employed by the Employer signed cards transferring their membership to the Union and authorizing it to act as their bargaining representative. The record shows that before the change in affiliation and designation was accomplished the Employer was notified that the change was impending. The contract, which the Union contends is a bar, was executed by the Employer and Guards-Seafarers on August 10, 1956, and was effective from July 1, 1956, to July 1, 1957. The contract contained an automatic renewal clause, which, in the absence of notice to amend or terminate before May 1, 1957, caused the contract to be renewed for another year. In fact, no such notice was given, and the Employer does not assert that the contract was not renewed. - Instead, the Employer contends that the contract does not bar the instant petition 1 Not reported in printed volumes of Board Decisions and orders. HUGHES TOOL COMPANY 739 because there was no formal substitution of the Union for Guards- Seafarers. The petition herein was filed on June 6, 1957. The foregoing facts do not indicate a schism or internal dispute within a contracting union resulting in the establishment of a new union which would challenge the representative status of the con- tracting union. On the contrary, they show a change occurred which is merely one of description and affiliation. Under these cir- cumstances we find that such change does not, by itself, render the renewed 1956 contract inoperative as a bar? As indicated, Guards-Seafarers was ineligible for certification when the 1956 contract was executed, and, for this reason, the 1956 contract could not bar a petition so long as Guards-Seafarers remained a party to it.3 However, as this statutory disability was removed prior to the contract's renewal date, by the above-described change in description, and organization, and by disaffiliation from Guards- Seafarers we see no cogent reason for now holding that the contract is defective as a bar. Accordingly, as the petition herein was filed. after the Mill-B date of the 1956 contract, we find that the contract, as renewed, is a bar to the petition. [The Board dismissed the petition.] See Dryden Rubber Division of Sheller Manufacturing Company, 118 NLRB 369; Michigan Bell Telephone Company, 85 NLRB 303. 3 See Columbia-Southern Chemical Corporation, 110 NLRB 1189. Hughes Tool Company and International Association of Machin- ists, AFL-CIO, Petitioner and Independent Metal Workers Union, Locals 1 and 2, CUA. Case No. 39-RC-1189. December 12,1957 DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF SECOND ELECTION On August 20, 1957, pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election, an election was conducted under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region among the employees in the stipulated unit. Upon conclusion of the elec- tion, a tally of ballots was furnished the parties in accordance with the Rules and Regulations of the Board. The tally showed 2,483 votes were cast; of these, 947 were cast for Petitioner, 1,507 were cast for Intervenor, 28 were cast against participating labor organizations, and 1 was challenged. The challenged ballot was not sufficient in number to affect the results of the election. On August 26,1957, the Petitioner filed timely objections to conduct affecting the results of the election. The Regional Director investi- 119 NLRB No. 107.