Great Lakes Industries, Inc.

CADMIUM & NICKEL PLATING, ETC. 353 Cadmium & Nickel Plating, Division of Great Lakes Industries, Inc. and Metal Polishers, Buffers, Platers & Helpers Interna- tional Union, AFL-CIO, Local #67, Petitioner. Case No. 21-RC-5643. August 6, 1959 ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR WITHDRAWAL OF PETITION On May 8, 1959, the Board, more than 30 days after the filing of the petition herein and in accordance with its policy of processing representation proceedings without regard to whether they were filed in violation of interunion no-raid pacts, directed an election in the unit found appropriate in the above-entitled case.' The Board issued its Decision and Direction of Election notwithstanding an um- pire's finding that the organizational efforts of the Petitioner, herein called the Metal Polishers, were contrary to the AFL-CIO no-raiding agreement and impinged upon the established bargaining relation- ship of the Intervenor, Processors' & Fabricators' Union, Local 802, AFL-CIO, affiliated with International Union of Doll & Toy Workers of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO, herein called Toy Work- ers. The election was conducted on May 28, 1959, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Twenty-first Region. At the conclusion of the election, the parties were furnished a tally of ballots which showed that of the approximately 71 eligible voters, 53 were for the Metal Polishers, none voted for the Toy Workers, 13 voted for no union, and 1 cast a challenged ballot. On June 3, 1959, the Toy Workers filed timely objections to the election with the Re- gional Director, based largely on the propriety of holding an election in derogation of the no-raid pact. After investigation of the objec- tions, the Regional Director on July 28, 1959, issued his report on objections recommending that the objections be overruled and that a certification of representatives be issued to the Metal Polishers. An extension of time to file exceptions to the report on objections has been granted. Meanwhile, on May 28, 1959, the Toy Workers instituted a suit against the Metal Polishers in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California seeking, under Section 301 of the Act, the specific performance of the umpire's ruling under the no- raid pact and the withdrawal by the Metal Polishers of its representa- tion petition herein. The Board's Regional Director was made a party defendant to the suit as an interested party. Both defendants moved to dismiss the court proceedings because the relief sought interfered with the Board's exclusive jurisdiction over representation proceed- 1 Unpublished. 124 NLRB No. 50. 525543-60-vol. 124-24 354 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ings. Thereafter, on June 26, the Metal Polishers filed a request with the Board for leave to withdraw the representation petition herein. Attached to this request was a copy of a telegram from the Metal Polishers' International ordering it to withdraw from the Employer's plant or be expelled from the AFL-CIO 2 The Metal Polishers also filed a motion with the District Court for leave to withdraw all oppo- sition to the Toy Workers' suit. The District Court proceedings were postponed to Alib st 10, 1959, to afford the Board the opportunity to rule on the Metal Polishers' request for withdrawal of the petition herein. The Board has thoroughly reviewed and considered the entire rec- ord in all of the proceedings before it and the court and, for the reasons herein set forth, the Metal Polishers' request to withdraw its representation petition herein is denied, and the objections filed by the Toy Workers will be processed in the customary manner. In the first instance, we find, and the record shows, that the Metal Polishers' withdrawal request is not voluntary but is due to the com- pulsion exerted under, and arising from, the AFL-CIO no-raid pact. Up until the receipt of the telegram, attached to the withdrawal re- quest, the Metal Polishers had clearly evinced a desire to represent the Employer's employees involved herein. The telegram shows that. the executive council of the AFL-CIO has ordered the Metal Pol- ishers either to withdraw its claim to represent the employees at the Employer's plant, or to be expelled from the AFL-CIO ; and it further shows that the executive board of the Metal Polishers' International has decided to remain in the AFL-CIO rather than be expelled and has ordered the Metal Polishers to withdraw its petition. In short, but for this compulsion arising from the AFL-CIO no-raid pact, it appears that the Metal Polishers would still desire to represent the Employer's employees. Secondly, although we recognize that the no-raiding agreement eliminates many interunion disputes, to allow the withdrawal of the petition under the circumstances herein would be to permit a private resolution of the question concerning representation in a manner con- trary to the policies of the Act and would impinge upon the Board's exclusive jurisdiction and authority to resolve such questions of rep- resentation. Thus, the AFL-CIO no-raid pact restricts employee free choice. Here the Toy Workers had been the incumbent for several 2 This telegram reads as follows : LOUIS L . LAUFMAN BUS AGT METAL POLISH- ERS BUFFERS PLATERS & HELPERS INTL UNION LOCAL 67, 1015 WEST OLYMPIC BLVD LOSA EXECUTIVE COUNCIL OF AFL-CIO HAS ORDERED POLISHERS TO WITHDRAW FROM CADMIUM & NICKEL PLANT OR. BE EX- PELLED FROM AFL-CIO MATTER TAKEN UP WITH OUR EXECUTIVE BOARD WHICH VOTED UNANIMOUSLY TO REMAIN IN AFL-CIO AND WITHDRAW FROM CADMIUM & NICKEL PLANT I HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO ADVISE YOU TO INFORM BOARD THAT POLISHERS UNION DESIRES TO WITHDRAW ITS PE- TITION AND HAVE ELECTION NULLIFIED. RAY MUEHLHOFFER MINUTE MAID CORPORATION 355 years, and its most recent contract had expired. Under normal Board policy, an appropriate occasion for the employees to redetermine their representative had arisen. Yet the AFL-CIO no-raid pact would require the employees to keep the Toy Workers or else forego repre- sentation by a union affiliated with the AFL-CIO. Thirdly, the result reached by application of the no-raid pact ap- pears to be contrary to the wishes of the Employer's employees as shown by the election results-the Metal Polishers received an over- whelming majority, and Toy Workers not a single vote. The Regional Director recommended overruling the Toy Workers' objections. While no certificate has yet been issued because of the pending objec- tions, permitting the withdrawal request would enable the Toy Work- ers to assert with impunity a claim to represent employees who, the election results show, no longer desire representation by the Toy Workers. Accordingly, the Metal Polishers' request is denied, and certification will be issued to the Metal Polishers as the representative of the Em- ployer's employees should it be found that the Toy Workers' objections to the election are without merit.' [The Board denied the Petitioner's request to withdraw the petition.] 3 Although the Board in Personal Products Corporation, 122 NLRB 563 , permitted the withdrawal with prejudice of a representation petition , in a situation caused by the no-raid pact , the petitioner was acting pursuant to a court order specifically enforcing the pact. ( United Textile Workers v. Textile Workers Union, 258 F. 2d 743 (C.A. 7), 1958.) However, in permitting the withdrawal, the Board noted it was not a party to the court litigation and that it did not acquiesce in the decision of the United States District Court, or of the court of appeals. Minute Maid Corporation and International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, Cannery, Citrus Workers, Drivers, Warehousemen and Allied Employees, Local 444. Case No. 1P-CA-305. August 7, 1959 DECISION AND ORDER On October 24, 1958, Trial Examiner Arthur E. Reyman 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 the Respondent cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. The Trial Examiner also found that the Respondent had not engaged in certain other alleged unfair labor practices.' Thereafter, the General Counsel ' As no exception was taken thereto , we adopt the recommendation of the Trial Ex- aminer that the complaint be dismissed insofar as it alleged that the Respondent dis- 124 NLRB No. 47.