Polar Ware Co.

1006 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD on February 23, 1962, threatened employees, including those in layoff status, that such laid-off employees would not be recalled nor would Respondent bring new work into the plant if the employees became members of or assisted the Union, and is identical with the allegations of the complaint. I have found that these statements were made and that they were violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act as constituting interference, restraint, and coercion. Respondent urges, however, that they should be considered remote as affecting the results of the election because of the interval of 70 days between their utterance and the date of the election, and further that they were isolated. I cannot agree. Although the statements in questions were all made on the same day, and were not repeated, they were made to over 40 employees, at a minimum. Moreover, they amounted to more than simple interrogation. They constituted a threat that if the Steelworkers won the election the plant would close down and employees already in layoff status would not be called back and other employees would join them. A threat of this nature in my opinion retains its force for longer than 70 days, and interferes with a free and untrammeled choice of a bargaining representative. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The operations of Respondent described in section I, above, in connection with the unfair labor practices described in section III, 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 Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, it will be recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Having found that the election of May 4, 1962, was conducted in circumstances not permitting a free and untrammeled choice by the employees, it will be recom- mended that the result of the election be set aside. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 2. By warning and threatening employees that employees in a layoff status would not be recalled to work, that Respondent would not bring new work into the plant, and that the plant might be closed if the Union won the election on May 4, 1962, Respondent engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. [Recommendations omitted from publication.] tion case The acts complained of as unfair labor practices occurred on February 23. The petition was filed on February 1, 1962. Polar Ware Company and Local 108, and International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, AFL-CIO (UAW),' Petitioners. Case No. 13-RC-8459. November 15, 1962 DECISION AND ORDER Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before George Squillacote, 'Hereinafter referred to as Local 108 and the UAW, respectively. 139 NLRB No. 78. POLAR WARE COMPANY 1007 hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. 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 [Chairman McCulloch and Members Rodgers and Brown]. 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 em- ployees of the Employer.' 3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa- tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Sections 9(c) (1) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act, for the following reasons: The Employer is engaged in the manufacture of stainless steel ware, and its only plant is located in Sheboygan, Wisconsin. In 1949, Local 166, Farm Equipment Workers, CIO (FE), which had been representing the Employer's employees since 1943, was expelled from the CIO because its leadership was considered to be Communist- dominated. Sometime in 1950, Local 166, along with all other FE locals, merged with the UE, which also had been previously expelled from the CIO for the same reason. Local 166 then became Local 166F, affiliated with the UE. Despite this background, Local 166F won a consent election held on May 12, 1953, and was certified by the Board on May 21,1953. Subsequently, various contracts were executed between the parties, the current contract having been executed on September 11, 1961, effective September 1, 1961,3 and due to expire on June 20, 1963. Each of these contracts lists the Intervenors sep- arately, and each was signed by separate representatives of Local 166F and the UE. The current contract was ratified by an "overwhelming" vote at a meeting of Local 166F held on August 31, and attended by approximately 160 members. On September 4, a rank-and-file committee met to discuss the possi- bility of disaffiliating from the UE, and on September 14 a meeting was held to discuss this same proposed action. Within a few days 2Local 166F, United Electrical , Radio and Machine Workers of America (UE), herein- after called Local 166F , and United Electrical , Radio and Machine Workers of America (UE), hereinafter called the UE, intervened on the basis of a contractual interest The Petitioners stipulated that the UE is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act, and the Intervenors stipulated to that effect as to the UAW. However, the Petitioners refused to stipulate as to Local 166F, and Intervenors as to Local 108. The record shows that the UE , the UAW, and Local 166F have had collective-bargaining agreements with employers , and exist for the purpose of dealing with employers on behalf of employees with respect to wages, hours , and conditions of employment , and Local 108 was formed for this purpose. We find both locals and both Internationals to be labor organizations within the meaning of the Act. 3 Unless otherwise specified, all dates hereinafter refer to 1961. 1008 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD following the meeting, 165 of the 200 employees in the unit signed a petition to affiliate with the UAW. At another meeting on Septem- ber 23, the employees voted to disaffiliate from the UE. A UAW charter was granted them later that day. On September 27, 166 em- ployees signed a petition to transfer affiliation from Local 166F to Local 108, and to transfer dues to the latter. Local 108 then requested the Employer to recognize it as the proper bargaining representative, but the Employer refused. On October 4, pursuant to their right under the current contract to withdraw from membership within 30 days, 179 employees formally withdrew from membership in Local 166F. The petition herein was filed on February 28, 1962. The Inter- venors contend that their current contract is a bar to an election, and hence that the petition must be dismissed. The Petitioners contend that Local 166F is defunct or that a schism exists, and hence an im- mediate election is warranted. The Board has stated that "a representative is defunct, and its contract not a bar, if it is unable or unwilling to represent the em- ployees."' Local 166F has continued to hold regular meetings, has elected officers, has continued to be recognized by the Employer and to meet with it for the purpose of settling grievances, and has emphati- cally claimed its willingness to administer the contract. It is clear, and we find that Local 166F is not defunct. Nor do we agree with Petitioners' schism contentions. In our opinion the record evidence does not clearly disclose that the employees took action, within the meaning of Hershey Chocolate, to disaffiliate from Local 166F because of a basic intraunion conflict. While it appears that the alleged Communist issue was a factor motivating some of the employees, it also appears that some employees supported the disaffiliation movement because of other reasons unrelated to that issue. The record shows that the Farm Equipment Workers and the UE had each been expelled from the CIO in 1949. The affiliation was nevertheless reaffirmed in 1953 when the employees, given an opportunity in a Board-conducted election to change their representa- tive, rejected the UAW and again selected Local 166F and the UE. Finally, the affiliation was again reaffirmed on August 31, 1961, when the employees, by an "overwhelming" vote, ratified the latest contract negotiated by Local 166F and the UE, their bargaining representa- tives. It was not until thereafter that the employees voted to dis- affiliate. In these circumstances, we find that the employees' disaffilia- tion action does not meet the schism standards established by the Board.' 4 See Hershey Chocolate Corporation, 121 NLRB 901. S See Hershey Chocolate Corporation, tbid SPRECHER DRILLING CORPORATION 1009 In view of the foregoing, we find that the Intervenors' contract constitutes a bar to an election of representatives at this time .6 [The Board dismissed the petition.] "The contract has a termination date of June 20, 1963 . Under the Board's current contract-bar rules , petitions filed on or after May 1, 1962, will be held timely if filed not earlier than 90 days , and not later than 60 days, prior to the termination date. See Leonard Wholesale Meats, Inc., 136 NLRB 1000. Sprecher Drilling Corporation 1 and Millwrights and Machinery Erectors, Local Union No. 2834, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 27-RC-2278. November 15, 1962 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 F. T. Frisbey, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed .2 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 Leedom, Fanning, and Brown]. 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 employees of the Employer. 3. The Petitioner seeks to represent a unit of all drillers, motor men, derrick men, and floor men employed by the Employer in the State of Wyoming. The Employer is a Wyoming corporation engaged in the business of drilling oil wells for oil companies. With head- quarters in Casper, Wyoming, it operates in an area covering six 1 The name of the Employer appears as corrected at the hearing. a The hearing officer referred to the Board the Employer 's motion to dismiss the petition on the following grounds: ( 1) The Employer's name was incorrectly stated on the peti- tion; ( 2) the petition does not comply with the Board's Rules and Regulations because it is not sworn before a notary public or other authorized person, and does not contain a declaration by the person signing it under the penalties of the criminal code that its con- tents are true and correct to the best of his belief; ( 3) the Petitioner has not demon- strated a 30-percent showing of interest; and (4 ) there is not sufficient continuity and stability of employment to justify the finding of an appropriate unit. As to ( 1) the error in the Employer's name was of a minor nature and was corrected at the hearing. As to (2) the record shows that the petition did contain the necessary declaration that the contents were true and correct to the best of the knowledge and belief of the person sign- ing it and that said petition was signed . As to ( 3) the sufficiency of the Petitioner's show- ing of interest is an administrative matter not subject to litigation . 0. D. Jennings & Company, 68 NLRB 516. We are administratively satisfied that Petitioner's showing of interest is adequate. Finally as to (4) we are finding , for reasons hereinafter set forth, an appropriate unit. In view of the foregoing we find the Employer 's contentions to be without merit. Accordingly , its motion to dismiss the petition is herewtih denied. 139 NLRB No. 79.