Benjamin Air Rifle Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 18, 1953

107 N.L.R.B. 104 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

104 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
BENJAMIN AIR RIFLE COMPANY, Petitioner and UNITED
ELECTRICAL, RADIO AND MACHINE WORKERS OF
AMERICA, LOCAL 11281 and INTERNATIONAL UNION OF
ELECTRICAL, RADIO AND MACHINE WORKERS, CIO,
LOCAL 828.2 Case No. 14-RM-93. November 18, 1953
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 Harry G.
Carlson, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made
at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby
affirmed. 3
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.
3. The UE contends that a collective -bargaining contract
signed on December 12, 1952, and effective to December 31,
1954, is a bar to this proceeding. The Employer-Petitioner
and the IUE-CIO assert that the contract is not a bar because
of a schism within the contracting union's ranks and the de-
functness of that organization.
The Employer-Petitioner has dealt with the UE as bargaining
representative of its employees for approximately 15 years.
At a regular meeting of the UE on June 5, 1953, Otto Miller,
its president, asked the membership to support him in de-
portation proceedings then pending against him. By a vote of
22 to 14, the meeting refused him the requested support.
Miller then stated that he would resign from his office because
he could not fulfill his duties under the circumstances. UE
Vice-President Heisler also declared at this meeting that
he would resign and did submit a letter of resignation a few
days later. However, neither official actually did resign.
This incident sparked to positive action long smoldering
resentment against Miller and the UE. With the approval of
three-fourths of its membership, a delegation of 8 members
of the UE led by its recording-secretary called upon the head
of the IUE-CIO in the St. Louis area to discuss disaffiliation
from the UE and affiliation with the IUE-CIO. On August 4,
1953, 3 of the 5 members of the UE executive board voted to
call a meeting of the membership to consider disaffiliating
from the UE and joining the IUE-CIO. On August 5, 1953, 52
of the 54 UE members signed a petition requesting the executive
board to call a meeting for this purpose.
' Herein called the UE.
2Herein called the IUE-CIO.
s The hearing officer referred to the Board for ruling the UE' s motion to dismiss the
petition . The motion is denied for the reasons hereinafter stated.
4Miller and Heisler were the other two executive board members . They attended but left
when informed of the purpose of the meeting.
107 NLRB No. 38.
BENJAMIN AIR RIFLE COMPANY 105
On August 7, 1953, 50 of the 54 members of the UE met at
the usual meeting hall to consider the question of disaffiliation.
The meeting was chaired by the UE's financial secretary as
neither president Miller nor Vice-President Heisler attended.
A motion was made from the floor and duly seconded to dis-
affiliate from the UE and to affiliate with the IUE. In the
ensuing discussion, the area president of the IUE participated. 5
This is the only evidence of participation by IUE representa-
tives in the disaffiliation proceedings. A secret ballot on the
disaffiliation motion showed a unanimous vote in favor of the
motion.' Following the vote, all employees present signed
authorization cards for the IUE-CIO and selected temporary
officers. Sometime later the new group received a charter
from the IUE-CIO.
On August 10, 1953, and subsequently, the IUE-CIO re-
quested the Employer-Petitioner to recognize it as bargaining
representative. At the same time, it expressed its willingness
to be bound by the existing collective-bargaining contract
between the Employer -Petitioner and the UE. The Employer -
Petitioner refused to extend recognition to the IUE-CIO
without a Board election as the UE had not abandoned its
claim to be recognized as bargaining representative. As the
result of the conflicting claims of representation, disturbances
occurred within the plant, police had to be called twice to
restore order, and production fell to approximately 30 percent
of normal. The 4 remaining employees loyal to the UE, in-
cluding Miller and Heisler, left their jobs claiming that they
had been threatened and intimidated by fellow employees.' As
its efforts to restore peace and order were unavailing, the
Employer-Petitioner filed the present representation petition.
At the present time, the UE has no members among the
employees of the Petitioner-Employer. No meetings of the
UE's membership or executive board have been held since
August 7. No grievances have been processed since that date
under the existing collective-bargaining contract. We find
that for all practical purposes, the UE is defunct at the
plant. Accordingly, we further find that the existing agree-
ment is not a bar to a present determination of representa-
tives.'
s There Is no evidence as to what this IUE representative said at the meeting. Three other
officers of the IUE regional organization were present, but apparently did not participate
in the discussion.
6 The UE contends that the disaffiliation action was ineffective because it did not conform
to the union's constitutional requirements. This contention is without merit. In a representa-
tion proceeding the Board is concerned with the fact of schism , and not with the legality of
steps taken in pursuance of schismatic action. Kearney & Trecker Corporation, 95 NLRB
1125, 1129.
7 This alleged intimidatory conduct by members of the IUE-CIO was made the subject of
an unfair labor practice charge, Case No. 14-CB- 204, which was dismissed by the Regional
Director.
B Franklin Throwing Company, 101 NLRB 153. We find no merit in the UE 's contention that
the employees were estopped from changing their bargaining agent because they had ratified
the 1952 contract of the UE and the Employer-Petitioner.
106 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
A question affecting commerce exists concerning the repre-
sentation of employees of the Employer within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The following employees of the Employer 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 at the Employer's
St. Louis, Missouri , plant including shipping clerks, but
excluding office clerical employees , engineers , draftsmen,
and supervisors as defined in the Act.9
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
9 This is substantially the unit convered by the contract of the Employer and the UE. The
parties seem to be in agreement on its appropriateness.
CHICOPEE MANUFACTURING CORPORATION and TEXTILE
WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA ( CIO), Petitioner. Case
No. 13-RC-3325. November 18, 1953
DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF RESULTS
On May 8, 1953 , pursuant to a stipulation for certification
upon consent election , an election by secret ballot was con-
ducted under the direction and supervision of the Regional
Director for the Thirteenth Region, among employees at the
Employer ' s Bensonville , Illinois , plant, in the stipulated
unit.
Upon the completion of the election , the Regional Director
duly issued and served on the parties a tally of ballots, which
showed that of approximately 27 eligible voters, 11 voted for
the Petitioner , 14 voted against the Petitioner , and no ballots
were challenged.
On May 11, 1953 , the Petitioner filed objections to conduct
affecting the results of the election . On July 3, 1953, the
Regional Director issued his report on objections recommend-
ing that all objections except objection 1 (a) be overruled and
that a hearing be held on all issues raised by objection 1 (a).
On July 27, 1953, the Board issued . its order adopting these
recommendations and directing that the hearing officer desig-
nated for the purpose of conducting the hearing prepare, and
cause to be served upon the parties , a report containing
resolutions of credibility of witnesses , findings of fact, and
recommendations to the Board as to the disposition of the
objections.
On August 17, 1953, pursuant to the orders of the Board,
a hearing was held before Hubert J. Sigal, hearing officer.
On October 9, 1953, the hearing officer issued and caused
to be served upon all parties his report on objections, with
findings and recommendations . The hearing officer found that,
107 NLRB No. 31.