General Electric Apparatus & Service Shop

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 26, 1954

110 N.L.R.B. 1054 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

1054 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to an order or certification of the Board determining the bargain-
ing representative for employees performing such work.
LOCAL 58, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD
OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, AFL,
Labor Organization.
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
DETROIT BUILDING TRADES COUNCIL, AFL,
Labor Organization.
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
GENERAL ELECTRIC APPARATUS & SERVICE SHOP and INTERNATIONAL
UNION OF ELECTRICAL, RADIO AND MACHINE WORKERS, C. 1. 0. (IUE-
CIO), PETITIONER. Case No. 14-RC-264. November 26,1954
Decision and Direction of Election
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before John M.
Schobel, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hear-
ing 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 National Labor Relations Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain
employees of the Employer.
3. The Intervenor, the United Electrical, Radio and Machine Work-
ers, Local 819, herein called the UE, contends that the current con-
tract dated December 15, 1950, as amended in 1951, 1952, and 1953, and
effective until April 15, 1955, is a'bar to this proceeding. The Peti-
tioner asserts that the contract is not a bar because of a schism within
the ranks of the contracting union.
From 1943 until 1949, Local 819, United Electrical Radio and
Machine Workers of America, C. I. 0., was the collective-bargaining
representative for the employees herein concerned. In November
1949, the United Electrical Workers was expelled from the CIO for
Communist domination. From 1949 to the present time, Local 819,
UE, has been the collective-bargaining representative. In the mean-
time, following a Board-directed election in 1950, in which the IUE-
CIO was on the ballot, the UE Local 819 was certified. On August
25, 1954, the executive board of Local 819, UE, voted to declare the
110 NLRB No. 171.
GENERAL ELECTRIC APPARATUS & SERVICE SHOP 1055
regular meeting of September 1, 1954, a special meeting for the pur-
pose of considering disaffiliation from the UE and affiliation with the
Petitioner, herein called IUE-CIO. One of the reasons for this action
was the alleged Communist domination of the Local. On August
26 and 27, 1954, a majority of the members of the UE Local signed a
petition requesting the executive board to call a meeting for the pur-
pose of considering disaffiliation.
Written notices were posted in the regular manner specifying the
purpose of the meeting. On September 1, 1954, 38 out of about 56
members of Local 819, UE, met in the usual meeting hall. A secret
ballot on the disaffiliation motion and motion to affiliate with the
IUE-CIO showed that 37 of the members were in favor of the 2
motions, and that 1 member was against both motions. Authoriza-
tion cards for an election were signed by those members attending
the meeting.'
The Board has held under circumstances comparable to those in
the present case, that the expulsion of a labor union by its parent
coupled with the later disaffiliation action on the local level for rea-
sons related to the expulsion creates a schism which warrants the
holding of an election despite a contract existing between the local
and the employer.' Accordingly, for this reason we find that the
contract between the Employer and the Intervenor does not bar the
instant proceeding.'
4. The parties stipulate and we find that 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, excluding warehouse employees, office clerical
employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
5. The record discloses that the Petitioner's local has been char-
tered by the IUE-CIO and has officers through whom it functions as
a labor organization. Although the International alone is the Pe-
titioner in the present proceeding, we conclude by reason of the fore-
going that Local 819, IUE-CIO, is sufficiently in the picture to re-
quire its compliance with Section 9 (f), (g), and (h) of the Act.
I No representative of the IUE-CIO attended either this meeting or the earlier execu-
tive board meeting. Although it appears that the IUE-CIO did furnish the above-men-
tioned petition and authorizations cards, we find no basis for concluding that the meet-
ing was controlled by the Petitioner and therefore not a meeting of the Intervenor. See
Empire Zino Division, The New Jersey Zinc Company, 108 NLRB 1663.
2 A. C. Lawrence Leather Company, 108 NLRB 546; Intern.¢tsonal Harvester Company,
East Molrone Works, 108 NLRB 600.
3 Member Rodgers concurs in the direction of elections herein, but finds it unnecessary
to decide whether there has been a schism. Instead, he would refuse to recognize the
contract of the Intervenor as a bar for reasons of broad public policy. Local 819's parent
organization, the UE, was expelled from the Congress of Industrial Organizations because
of Communist domination. Under these circumstances the availability of the Board's
processes to the Intervenor would not, in Member Rodgers' opinion, effectuate the policies
of the Act nor properly serve the interests of national security.
1056 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Accordingly, the holding of the election directed herein is condi-
tioned upon Local 819, IUE-CIO, achieving compliance within 2
weeks after the Decision and Direction of Election.4 No election will
be held pending compliance by Local 819, IUE-CIO.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
{ Franklin Tanning Company, 104 NLRB 192, at 194.
MONTANA-DAKOTA UTILITIES Co. and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD
OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, AFL, PETITIONER. Case No. 18-RC-39.
November 26, 1954
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 Marshall J. Seidman,
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 organization involved claims to represent employees
of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9
(c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Employer is engaged in the production, transmission, and
distribution of both gas and electricity within the States of Minne-
sota, North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, and Wyoming, and
employs about 900 persons. Its main administrative office is in Minne-
apolis. The physical operation of its properties is carried on by 17
operating divisions. The Union represents, by contract, the employees
of 15 of these operating divisions. Only employees of the Billings
(Montana) division, and the Crookston (Minnesota) division are
unrepresented.
Primarily, the Petitioner seeks to represent all of the Employer's
operating employees in one companywide unit, although it stated it
would accept any of several alternative units if such were found
appropriate by the Board. The Employer contends that it would be
inappropriate to group the employees of the various divisions or sys-
tems into one bargaining unit. Among other things, the Employer
points out that it has contracted to sell the properties in the Shelby
and Havre divisions on some date between August 31, 1954, and July 1,
1955, contingent on approval by the Federal Power Commission. In
addition, the Employer calls attention to the fact that the Petitioner
110 NLRB No. 174.