Aleo Manufacturing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 13, 1954

109 N.L.R.B. 1297 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

ALEO MANUFACTURING COMPANY 1297
respect to the Petitioner's filing of its representation claim on April
20, 1954, the record discloses that the Employer and the Intervenor
commenced negotiations on April 14, 1954. On April 15, after agree-
ment had been reached on all the contractual provisions, the Em-
ployer's counsel drafted the contract for signature of the parties.
The Employer's counsel and the Intervenor's representative testified
at the hearing that an original and a duplicate of the document were
formally executed in the offices of the Employer on April 16, and that
the Intervenor's representative procured additional copies which he
subsequently distributed to the employees for signature. However,
the Petitioner produced as a witness an employee who testified that
on April 21 he, along with certain other employees, was requested to
affix his signature to three copies of the contract, and that at the time
he signed the documents the signatures of the contracting parties did
not appear thereon.
In view of the foregoing testimony, we are persuaded that the con-
tract in question was in fact executed on April 16, 1954, and that the
Petitioner's claim, made on April 20, was not timely. The original
contract, introduced into evidence in this proceeding, contained the
signatures of the contracting parties alone. A copy of that contract
which the Petitioner's witness averred he signed on April 21 was also
received in evidence. In our opinion, this witness' testimony that no
other signatures appeared on the document which he signed is cor-
roborative of the testimony of the Employer's counsel and the Inter-
venor's representative that the original document was executed by
the parties on April 16, and that copies were later distributed to the
employees for their signature. Accordingly, we conclude that the
Petitioner's petition, filed on April 21, 1954, is barred by an existing
contract between the Employer and the Intervenor. We shall there-
fore dismiss the petition.
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
MEMBERS MURDOCK and RODGERS took no part in the consideration
of the above Decision and Order.
ALEO MANUFACTURING COMPANY and TEXTILE WORKERS UNION OF
AMERICA, CIO, AND ITS LOCAL 603, TWUA, CIO,' PETITIONER and
UNITED TEXTILE WORKERS OF AMERICA, AND ITS LOCAL UNION 603,
UTWA, AFL. Case No. 11-RC-608. September 13, 1954
Decision and Order
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Harold X. Summers,
I Local 603 , TWUA, CIO, was added as party petitioner at the hearing without objection
109 NLRB No. 163.
1298 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
hearing officer. 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 2 involved claim to represent employees
of the Employer.
3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the represen-
tation 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
reasons:
In June 1952, Local 603, then bargaining agent for the production
and maintenance employees involved herein, disaffiliated from Textile
Workers Union of America, CIO, hereinafter referred to as TWUA-
,CIO, and affiliated with United Textile Workers of America, AFL,
hereinafter referred to as UTWA-AFL 3 The Employer granted
recognition to Local 603, UTWA-AFL, and executed a contract effec-
tive from June 9, 1952, to June 7, 1953. This contract was amended
on March 18, 1953, and extended to June 9, 1955. Thereafter, on
March 31, 1953, the parties, together with TWUA-CIO, entered into
a consent-election agreement and pursuant thereto an election was
held on April 9, 1953, resulting in the certification of UTWTA-AFL on
May 20,1953.
On February 19,1954, the instant petition was filed by TWUA-CIO.
The Intervenor, UTWA-AFL and Local 603, UTWA-AFL, contends
that the contract and certification are bars to this proceeding. The
Employer is continuing to recognize the certified collective-bargain-
ing agent and to honor the contract but maintained a position of neu-
trality on the issues raised at the hearing. The Petitioner, TWUA-
CIO and Local 603, TWUA-CIO, contends, in substance and in the
alternative that : (1) Because UTWA-AFL has abandoned its certifi-
cation to the Local there is no certification bar, and that a schism has
occurred in Local 603, UTWA-AFL, leaving the contracting local
defunct, thereby removing the contract bar; and (2) this situation is
one where a contracting local changed its affiliation from one interna-
tional union to another, therefore this Local 603 and its petitioning
International, TWUA-CIO, should be declared the rightful bargain-
ing agent to administer the current contract without an election.
In December 1953, the South Central Joint Board, which serviced
this and several other local unions, was dissolved through actions
taken by those locals, and Lawrence Gore, business agent for the Joint
2 Contrary to the contentions of the Petitioner regarding defunctness , and for the rea-
sons hereinafter stated, we find that Local 603, UTWA, AFL, is a labor organization within
the meaning of the Act.
$ The parties stipulated regarding certain background facts, a portion of which were
involved in Wade Manufacturing Co , 100 NLRB 1135
ALEO MANUFACTURING COMPANY 1299
Board, continued to act as business agent for Local 603, UTWA-AFL,
apparently without benefit of any official action of the Local and
without compensation. On January 10, 1954, Local 603, UTWA-AFL,
held a regular monthly meeting. At this meeting, a resolution con-
taining, among other things, a motion 4 directed toward disaffiliation
from UTWA-AFL was presented. This resolution had been prepared
by Lawrence Gore, and endorsed by 2 of the 7 executive officers and
board members.' The motion passed by a vote of 34 to 26.6 Motions
to have the resolution posted in the plant before it was voted upon, and
to have the resolution posted in the plant after its passage , failed to
carry.
On January 11, 1954, Lawrence Gore was suspended as an officer
and member of Local 603, UTWA-AFL, and was so notified and ad-
vised that the affairs of Local 603, UTWA-AFL, had been placed
under the administration of a committee of trustees. By letter dated
January 12, 1954, Gore, as business agent for Local 603, informed the
Employer that the Local had voted "to handle its own affairs on a
local level in every respect." On January 13, 1954, a temporary re-
straining order was issued by the Superior Court of North Carolina,
enjoining Lawrence Gore, and others acting with him, from interfer-
ing in the handling and settling of grievances under the contract and
prohibiting the dissipation of funds or disposition of properties of
Local 603, UTWA-AFL.' After January 10, 1954, the group acting
with Gore conducted themselves as Local 603, Independent. Their
communications and announcements omitted any reference in their
title to UTWA-AFL. They appointed temporary officers, commit-
teemen, and stewards to fill the positions of those who refused to go
along with the disaffiliation motion at the January 10th meeting;
solicited signatures for revocation and reauthorization of dues check-
off cards, and new members; and mailed out literature.
4 This portion of the resolution read "That we hereby put UTWA-AFL on notice that we
do not want any of their representatives to come into our locality, nor to consider them-
selves as associates of ours, in any way, and from today on, we do not want to be con-
sidered a part of UTWA-AFL." This resolution also affirmed Gore as business agent of
the Local. According to Gore he was, from that time until February 14, 1954, business
agent for Local 603 , Independent
5 The subject matter of the motion had not been presented to the other executive officers
in any manner until 5 minutes before the meeting opened. Four of the seven executive
officers opposed the motion
9 The approximately 65 present at this meeting , although greater than the normal
attendance of 25 to 30 at regular meetings , was small when compared to approximately
700 employees in the unit Of the 706 employees in the contract unit on December 26,
1953 , 583 were having union dues paid by payroll checkoff , and on February 20, 1954, of
696 employees in the unit , 567 maintained checkoff authorizations.
7 Plaintiffs in this court action were the appointed trustees of Local 603 , UTWA-AFL,
including the four officers and executive board members who opposed the motion at the
January 10, 1954, meeting These individuals sued in their various capacities as indi-
viduals, officers, and trustees of Local 603, UTWA-AFL, and as representatives of
UTWA-AFL
334811-+55-vol 109--83,
1300 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Meanwhile, the group opposed to the disaffiliation continued to hold
activity meetings for Local 603, UTWA-AFL. The trustees ap-
pointed other members as officers, committeemen, and shop stewards
to fill the vacancies created by the Gore group defection, continued to
handle grievances and to use the bulletin board for union notices, etc.
On January 21, 1954, a group representing Local 603, UTWA-AFL,
together with representatives of the International, UTWA-AFL, met
with the Employer to discuss some grievances and arrangements for a
pending arbitration matter. At that meeting, they discussed the
current disruption in Local 603, UTWA-AFL, and on January 22 the
Employer posted on the bulletin board a notice indicating that it
would continue to handle grievances under the current contract with
Local 603, UTWA-AFL.8
On February 8 and 9, 1954, the Gore group distributed a handbill
at the gate of the plant announcing, a "regular meeting of Local 603"
for February 14, 1954, at the union hall. The handbill listed as
matters for discussion "I. Reaffirming our severance of all relations
with UTWA-AFL taken January 10, 1954. II. Affiliation with
TWUA-CIO. III. Replacements of officers where needed. IV. Regu-
lar business." Before February 8 the temporarily established execu-
tive board of Local 603, Independent, met to make arrangements for
the February 14 meeting. Gore stating that "we were Independent
at that time," testified that he knew of no meeting of Local 603,
UTWA-AFL, in preparation for the February 14 meeting. The
established form for calling meetings for Local 603, UTWA-AFL, was
by posting a notice on the bulletin board in the plant. The record
does not reveal that the latter procedure was followed in the present
case. On February 12, 1954, the Superior Court of North Carolina
issued its order continuing the outstanding restraining order and ex-
panding thereon, by among other things, ordering all checkoff funds
pursuant to the contract to be deposited with the clerk of the court,
and directing the sheriff to lock the union hall.' The Gore group then
obtained a meeting place in the courthouse. On Saturday, February
13, this change in the meeting place was announced from a sound truck
which toured the area where a substantial number of Aleo workers
8 This notice read as follows : "In order to be legally correct in answering any questions
which are being asked , I have consulted with our lawyer as to our position on these mat-
ters. The National Labor Relations Board has certified the United Textile Workers of
America, A F. of L. as the collective bargaining agent of all Aleo workers in the bargain-
ing unit . The contract is currently in effect between Local 603 affiliated with the United
Textile Workers of America, A. F. of L. and the Aleo Manufacturing Company. All griev-
ances will be governed by the machinery of this contract and handled between the repre-
sentatives of this Union and the Company ." The notice was signed by S. A. Black,
manager
9 There is some indication that Manager Black had at Gore's request , and without full
knowledge of what had occurred , given the dues checkoff check to Gore shortly after the
January 10 meeting , and that some incidents had occurred with respect to the rights of
the two groups to use the union hall.
ALEO MANUFACTURING COMPANY 1301
lived. Meanwhile trustees and officers of Local 603, UTWA-AFL,
informed those members whom they could reach by word-of-mouth
and telephone, that this was not a meeting of the regular Local 603,
UTWA-AFL. The record establishes that officials of Local 603,
UTWA-AFL, took no part in arranging for the February 14 meeting.
At the February 14, 1954, meeting 10 a resolution to affirm the action
taken at the January 10 meeting and to affiliate with TWUA-CIO
was passed unanimously. This resolution, like the one presented at
the January 10 meeting, was prepared by Gore.ii Although no check
of the membership of those attending the February 14 meeting was
made, several of the group testified they regarded all who signed the
checkoff cards for the Independent group after the January 10 meet-
ing; all who became members of the Union through this group after
that date; and all members of Local 603 prior to January 10 who had
indicated they wished to go along with this group and who attended
the February 14 meeting, as eligible to vote.
After the February 14 meeting, the Gore group became Local 603,
TWUA-CIO. As such, it acquired another building to use as a union
hall; opened a new bank account in a bank other than the one main-
tained by Local 603, UTWA-AFL; solicited some grievances; and
sought to participate in arbitration proceedings arranged by the Em-
ployer and Local 603, UTWA-AFL.
Local 603, UTWA-AFL, under its trustees and officers, shop stew-
ards, and committeemen, with the assistance of UTWA-AFL repre-
sentatives, has continued to hold activity meetings, processed and
settled grievances with the Employer, carried forward one arbitra-
tion matter through a hearing, and has otherwise administered the
existing contract. The Employer has received no revocation of dues
checkoff authorizations due to the defection. The Employer states
that as of April 29, 1954, it continues to recognize the Intervenor as
the duly certified bargaining representative and that it will continue
to honor the contract then in effect.
TWUA-CIO urges that it was the February 14 meeting which
accomplished the disaffiliation of Local 603 from UTWA-AFL, with-
in the Board principles, and that the January 10 meeting was pre-
liminary thereto. We are unable to view the facts in this manner.
As brought out by the testimony of Gore and others acting with him,
and substantiated by the omission of UTWA-AFL in the title name
on their notices and other communications after that date including
10 Two attendance figures were given for this meeting-one of approximately 200, the
other of approximately 118. We find it unnecessary to resolve the discrepancy as neither
of these figures is substantial when compared to approximately 700 employees in the
unit and approximately 575 union members paying dues through payroll checkoff.
1 Evidence and testimony was presented with a view to proving that Gore was acting
in cooperation with the CIO during this entire period in an attempt to create a schism
in Local 603 . In view of other circumstances present in this case, we find it unnecessary
to consider the weight and effect of such evidence.
1302 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the handbill concerning the February 14 meeting, the Gore group
regarded themselves after January 10 as Local 603, Independent.
The February 14 meeting was called and arranged not by officers of
Local 603, UTWA-AFL, or anyone purporting to act on its behalf,
but by a group which at the time denied any association with it. It is
difficult therefore to comprehend the Petitioner's contention that on
February 14 the Gore group purported to take official action for
Local 603, UTWA-AFL.
The Board will not accord any validity to a formalized disaffilia-
tion proceeding when a vote is not taken at a meeting of the contract-
ing union.12 Under the circumstances in this case, the February 14
meeting cannot qualify as one of Local 603, UTWA-AFL." Nor
are we able to find that the January 10 meeting warrants the applica-
tion of the Board's schism doctrine. That meeting was not called or
announced as a meeting for the purpose of considering any disaffilia-
tion move, and therefore does not comply with the requirements of
formalized action which the Board has held to be a prerequisite of
a true schism.14 On the contrary, it is clear from the continued
activity of Local 603, UTWA-AFL," that the disaffiliation expression
at the January 10 meeting was merely indicative of a dissident ele-
ment in the membership, but not of a substantial and effective change
in the existence and functioning of the recognized bargaining agent.'°
The circumstances with which we are here concerned are substantially
different and clearly distinguishable from those present in the Wade
'Manufacturing Company case." We are unable to agree with our dis-
senting colleague that the coincidence of this local's participation in
1952 in the action considered in the Wade case has any bearing on the
events occurring in 1954 presently before us. Accordingly, we find
the alleged disaffiliation action did not render the contract ineffective
as a bar.18
13 See Barton Distilling Company, et at., 106 NLRB 361 ; G. Mathes Division of Lewin-
Mathes Company, 105 NLRB 911.
73 See Mission A pphance Corporation, 104 NLRB 577.
14 The Linde Air Products Company, a Division of Union Carbide and Carbon Corpora-
tion, Apparatus Plant No 1, 107 NLRB 1148.
15 In view of the facts presented and our conclusion therefrom , we find no merit in the
Petitioner's contention that Local 603, UTWA-AFL, is defunct . On the contrary, the
record establishes that it is an operating organization actively carrying on the adminis-
tration of its contract
16 See Mission Appliance Corporation, 104 NLRB 577; Mario Mercado E Hijos d/b/a
Central Ruflne, 105 NLRB 591 ; G Mathes Division of Lewin-Mathes Company, footnote
12, supra; cf. American Factors, Ltd ., et at., 104 NLRB 199 . Also cf. A. C. Lawrence
Leather Company, 108 NLRB 546.
IT See background in text and footnote 3, supra.
Is The Petitioner attempted to prove that the UTWA-AFL had abandoned or assigned
its certification to its Local 603, UTWA-AFL, and had thereby forfeited its rights under
the certification . Although we find no merit in this contention, we do not accept the
Intervenor 's certification bar contention. Board precedent establishes that evidence of
schism is an unusual circumstance justifying the processing of a petition filed within the
certification year. See General Electric Company, Appliance Ser%ice Center , 96 NLRB
566, 567, and cases cited therein.
ALEO MANUFACTURING COMPANY 1303
Similarly, we find no merit in the Petitioner's alternative contention
that the contracting union, Local 603, merely changed its affiliation
from UTWA-AFL to TWUA-CIO, and that Local 603, TWUA-CIO,
should be declared the rightful bargaining agent to administer the
current contract. It is apparent from the circumstances stated above
that Local 603 did not, as a body, act to change its affiliation with any
degree of virtual unanimity.'9
Under the circumstances, including the continued existence and
activity of the Intervenor, we find that there is no confusion as to
the identity of the bargaining representative recognized by the Em-
ployer.20 There being no schism or other basis for avoiding the nor-
mal consequences of an existing contract, we find that the current con-
tract is a bar to an election at the present time. We shall, accord-
ingly, dismiss the petition.
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
CHAIRMAN FARMER, dissenting :
I dissent from the decision of my colleagues not to direct an election
in this proceednig. The circumstances here arise from the same gen-
eral factual background that was before the Board in Wade Manufac-
turing Company, supra, where the Board found a schism to exist and
directed an election upon the petition of the UTWA-AFL. In my
opinion, the fact that in the present case the members of Local 603
seeking a return to the TWUA-CIO took the intermediate step of
functioning for a while ,as an independent union-and thus foreclosed
the possibility of accomplishing a transfer of affiliation at a meeting
of the contracting union-should not be held now to prejudice the right
of the Petitioner to seek certification in their behalf. I believe that
the Board has not always applied its doctrines relating to schism with
such technical strictness, and, as the facts in this case appear to show
a substantial confusion in the bargaining relationship between the Em-
ployer and its employees, I would direct an election to resolve the is-
sue of representation.
19 Cf Charles Beek Machine Corporation , 107 NLRB 874.
20 The Weatherhead Company, Antwerp Revision, 108 NLRB 717 . In accord with our
usual policy, we do not hereby pass upon the respective rights in the property and assets
now being litigated in the courts . See The Prudential Insurance Company of America, 106
NLRB 237; New York Shipbuilding Corporation, 89 NLRB 915 , 916. Furthermore, the
pendency of legal proceedings elsewhere does not in our opinion, require a finding that con-
fusion exists as to the identity of the bargaining representative . The Board has held that
court litigation concerning the legality of disaffiliation or of property right bears no rela-
tionship to the Board 's investigation of questions concerning representation of employees.
New York Shipbuilding Corporation, supra, page 916, footnote 6.