Calumet & Hecla, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 30, 1953

105 N.L.R.B. 950 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

950 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
herein found appropriate, we shall permit it to withdraw
upon notice to the Regional Director within 10 days after
issuance of the Decision and Direction of Electionherein.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
Chairman Herzog and Member Styles took no part in the
consideration of the above Decision and Direction of Election.
CALUMET & HECLA, INC. (WOLVERINE TUBE. DIVISION)
and PAUL S. RUSSELL, Petitioner and INTERNATIONAL
UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT AND AGRI-
CULTURAL, IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO.
Case No. 10RD-114. June 30., 1953
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was heldbefore Paul L. Harper,
hearing officer, on February 3, 1953. Subsequently, on the
motion of the Union, the Board reopened the hearing for the
admission of additional evidence. The reopened hearing was
held before the same hearing officer on May 12, 1953. The
hearing officer ' s rulings made at the hearings, as modified by
the Board's order reopening 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 Petitioner, an employee of the Employer, asserts
that the Union is no longer the bargaining representative of
the employees designated in the petition as defined in Section
9 (a) of the Act . The Union , a labor organization , was certified
on May 4, 1951,' as the bargaining representative of the Em-
ployer's employees involved herein.
International Chemical Workers Union, AFL, moved to
intervene on the basis of less than a 30-percent showing of
interest . In the order reopening the hearing a majority of the
Board , Chairman Herzog and Member Houston dissenting on
the ground that intervention would confuse the issue in a
decertification case , granted the motion to intervene. In the
opinion of the majority there appeared no sufficient reason
for differentiating between decertification and other repre-
sentation proceedings in permitting intervention . Intervenor's
later request for leave to withdraw from this proceeding was
granted by the hearing officer during the reopened hearing.
3. The Union contends that the petition should be dismissed
on the ground that the decertification Petitioner is either an
agent of the Employer or is fronting for a noncomplying union,
the Decatur Industrial Employees Club organized by the
Petitioner.
1 Case No. 10-RC-1346.
105 NLRB No. 136.
CALUMET & HECLA, INC. 951
In support of its contentions the Union relies almost entirely
upon the testimony of the Petitioner himself. His testimony
reveals that he actively campaigned against the Union in the
spring of 1951, that he led the back-to - work movement,
instituted an employees , suit against the Union and organized
the Decatur Industrial Employees Club in the fall of 1951, and
that he filed the previous and the instant RD petitions against
the Union . The Petitioner admitted that as a member of the
Decatur Country Club he shared social occasions with many
of the Employer ' s officials , also members of the club, and
that he was a member of the Chamber of Commerce at a time
when the president of the organization was the Employer's
plant manager and when that organization was conducting an
active antiunion campaign. Nevertheless , he testified without
contradiction that at no time did he ever discuss with any
official of the Employer his antiunion activities.
The Petitioner also asserted that he paid the initiation fees
and annual dues of the Country Club and Chamber of Commerce,
and his expenses incurred in the back-to-work campaign, out
of his wages as a maintenance electrician and his "savings."
On the other hand he claimed that in retaining an attorney to
handle the legal work associated with the formation of the
Employees Club , the back-to -work movement , the suit against
the Union , and the two RD petitions , he and others associated
with him in these activities told the attorney that they were
"broke " and promised him an unspecified fee to be paid at
some undetermined time in the future.
The Employer has clearly indicated , through its conduct at
the hearing and in a speech made to its employees after the
election in 1951, that it desires a representation election at
the earliest possible moment. These facts, andthe Petitioner's
testimony in general , raise grave doubts in our minds as to
the veracity of the Petitioner ' s account of the facts . However,
we reject the Union's contention that the Petitioner has, in
filing this petition , acted at the behest of the Employer as the
record lacks sufficient affirmative evidence, direct or circum-
stantial , to justify such a conclusion.2
The Petitioner contended , and testified , that the Decatur
Industrial Employees Club , of which he was president , was not
a labor organization , that its primary purpose was to promote
individual , rather than collective, bargaining . The great pre-
ponderance of the evidence supports the Petitioner ' s contention.
Therefore we find, contrary to the Union ' s contention , that the
Petitioner in filing the instant decertification petition is not
fronting for a noncomplying labor organization.
Accordingly , we find that a question affecting commerce
exists concerning the representation of employees of the
Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2
(6) and ( 7) of the Act.
4. The parties are in agreement concerning the unit appro-
priate for the purposes of collective bargaining. We have
ZCompare Manchester Rendering Co., 91 NLRB 1257.
291555 0 - 54 - 61-
952 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
modified the description of the stipulated unit to exclude
"office clerical employees " rather than "office and clerical
employees " in keeping with our decision in D. M . Steward
Mfg. Co., 102 NLRB 461.
We find that all production and maintenance employees at the
Decatur , Alabama , plant of Calumet & Hecla , Inc. (Wolverine
Tube ' Division ), excluding office clerical employees, time-
keepers , time-study employees , sales employees , watchmen,
guards , nurses , engineers , draftsmen and all other professional
employees , confidential employees , management representa-
tives , and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within
the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
5. The Union contends that employees who went out on
strike in 1951 and have not yet been reinstated should be per-
mitted to vote in the election hereinafter directedbecause they
are on a tempofary laid-off status . The record indicates, how-
ever , that these employees are economic strikers who have
been permanently replaced , that they are not entitled to rein-
statement , and that they have no reasonable expectation of
reemployment in the near future . We find, therefore , that they
are not eligible to vote in the election directed below.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
LAKEFIELD MANUFACTURING CO. and INTERNATIONAL
UNION , UNITED AUTOMOBILE , AIRCRAFT AND AGRI-
CULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA (UAW-
CIO), Petitioner . Case No. 13-RC-2969 . June 30, 1953
DECISION AND ORDER
Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent
election dated September 29, 1952 , an election was held
under the direction of the Regional Director for the Thirteenth
Region on October 15, 1952, among employees at the Em-
ployer ' s plant at Milwaukee , Wisconsin , in which election
the Petitioner did not receive a majority of the valid votes
cast.
Thereafter , on October 20, 1952, the Petitioner filed timely
objections to the election, and requested that the election be
set aside . The Regional Director caused an investigation to
be made of the Petitioner ' s objections , and on January 29, 1953,
issued his report in which he found merit in the Petitioner's
objections and recommended that the election be set aside.
Thereafter , the Employer duly filed exceptions to the Regional
Director ' s report on objections.
The Board having duly considered the matter , and it appear-
ing that the objections raised substantial and material issues
of fact, on March 2 , 1953 , the Board ordered that a hearing
be held on the issues raised by the objections. The Board
105 NLRB No. 139.