Hulman and Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 2, 1956

115 N.L.R.B. 1260 (N.L.R.B. 1956)

1260 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
sponsibly direct or make effective recommendations affecting the
status of other employees. We find he is not a supervisor and in-
clude him in the unit.
Accordingly, we find the following employees of the Valdese Man-
ufacturing Company, Inc., at its plant located at Valdese, North
Carolina, 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 including the yarn
weigher, the emulsion man, the tube supply man, the utility man, the
waste house man, the sanitation man, the machine maintenance man,
the electrician, the plant maintenance men, the moving and repair
men, the spare hands, the cotton receiving clerk, the warehouse re-
ceiving clerks, the laboratory girl, the laboratory man,3 the trash-
man or drayman, the dye plant clerks, the shipping department clerk,
the maintenance leadman,4 the second and third shift leaders,' the
dyer,' and the card grinder,' but excluding office clerical employees,
the quality control man, the firemen-watchmen, guards, and super-
visors as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
3 Charles McBrayer.
4 Horace Bean.
5 Lloyd Johnson and Evert Williams.
U Ervin Deal.
4 Ervin Smith.
Rumford Chemical Works , Division of Hulman and Company'
and Rumford Chemical Employees Association Independent
Union , Petitioner . Case No. 1-RC-4342. May 0, 1956
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Herbert N. Watterson, hear-
ing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed 2
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
1 The name , of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing.
2 United Baking Powder and Allied Products Unit No. 456, Local No. 184, Bakery and
Confectionery Workers International Union of America, AFL-CIO, herein called the
Intervenor , was permitted to intervene on the basis of its contractual interest.
3 As the record indicates that the Petitioner , organized in December 1955, exists for
the purpose of bargaining with the Employer with respect to wages, hours, and other
conditions of. employment , we find, contrary to the contention of the Intervenor, that
the Petitioner is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act.
115 NLRB No. 198.
RUMFORD CHEMICAL WORKS - 1261
3. No 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 for the following
reasons:
The Intervenor contends that its 2-year contract executed October
1, 1953, automatically renewed itself and continues in existence, thus
operating as a bar to the petition herein filed on December 27, 1955.
The Employer and the Intervenor executed a collective-bargaining
agreement effective October 1, 1953, for a 2-year period expiring Sep-
tember 30, 1955, and provided for its automatic renewal from year to
year, absent a 60-day notice to terminate given by "either party." The
Petitioner contends that automatic renewal of the contract was pre-
vented by the July 23, 1955, notice to terminate given by Unit No. 456 4
of Local No. 184, and that as a consequence its petition is not barred.
We do not agree. We do not believe that the notice to terminate uni-
laterally given by Unit No. 456 without the consent or approval of
Local No. 184 constituted a valid termination notice under the contract
herein. A study of the contract and the record testimony pertaining to
the participation and function of Local No. 184 in the bargaining
prior to and since the execution of the contract convinces us that Local
No. 184 has final and exclusive authority as bargaining representative
of the employees herein to terminate the contract. It is clearly not a
mere nominal party whose approval to terminate the contract is not
required.' First, we note that the address shown in the contract as
that of the bargaining representative ("Unit No. 456, Local No. 184
an affiliate of the Bakery and Confectionery Worker's International
Union of America") is that of Local No. 184. In addition, the Union
signatories to the contract are officials of Local No. 184.6 Further it is
clear that certain of the contract obligations are enforceable against the
Local only.' In addition, Local No. 184 officials participated in all
negotiations preceding the contract and the Local's executive com-
mittee ratified the contract after it was executed, which action was ap-
parently a condition precedent to the contract's full force and effect.
Furthermore, local officials appear to have presented and handled vir-
tually all grievances processed since the contract was executed and to
have been a necessary party to and to have participated in all contract
negotiations under both the present contract and prior contracts dating
4 Unit No. 456. comprised of employees of the Employer only, is 1 of 4 units constituting
Local No 184 Employees in the various departments elect shop stewards who, in turn,
elect officers to transact unit business . Four members of the unit serve on Local No. 184's
executive board. It appears that the unit holds no regularly scheduled meetings and
that, as all money is paid Into Local No. 184's treasury , the unit has no independent funds.
8 See North American Philips Company, Inc., 78 NLRB 666, 668, footnote 5.
One signatory was at the time both an official of the Local and of the unit.
7 E. g., as Unit No. 456 has no independent treasury , damages conceivably recoverable
by the Employer under the "no strike" provision of the contract would have to be satis-
fied out of the Local's treasury
1262 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
from 1950. Finally we note that all notices to modify prior contracts
have originated from Local No. 184.8 In these circumstances, as we
believe that the July 23, 1955, notice by Unit No. 456 did not constitute
a valid termination notice, and as neither Local No. 184 nor the
Employer gave notice of a desire to terminate the contract, we find that
the contract automatically renewed itself and was in effect when the
instant petition was filed on December 27,1955. Accordingly, we find
that the contract is a bar to the instant petition.
Nor do we find that the facts of this case warrant an application of
the Board's "schism" doctrine. The record reveals that on July 22,
1955, the membership of Unit No. 456 voted to terminate the contract
herein,' and subsequently notified the Employer of its action and re-
quested that the checkoff of dues under the contract be discontinued.10
Subsequently on November 1, 1955, the officers and stewards of the
unit notified the Employer that they had "severed connections" with
the unit. It does not appear that any formalized action to disaffiliate
from the Intervenor was ever taken by the membership of the unit."
We do not believe that the mere fact that there has been a defection
in the rank of the employees and that, in an apparent manifestation of
dissatisfaction with its bargaining representative, the membership
voted to terminate the contract herein and requested that the dues
checkoff be discontinued justifies the application of the schism doc-
trine.la We find that despite the defection in the ranks of the em-
ployees, the Local remains as a functioning organization, ready, able,
and willing to administer the contract.13 In these circumstances we
find that there is no confusion as to the bargaining agent recognized
by the Employer and that a departure, in the instant case, from the
usual contract-bar rule on the ground of schism is not warranted.
Accordingly, we shall dismiss the petition herein.
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
"The Employer appeals to have believed that final contract authority was vested in
the Local, for instead of accepting the unit's notice of termination at face value. upon
receipt of the notice the Employer contacted the Local for the apparent purpose of deter-
mining if the notice was official
'Approximately 75 members were present at the meeting and all voted to terminate
the contract
`Approximately 95 of the 104 members of the unit have made this request
"See Lewittes and Sods, 96 NLRB 775, 778 The June 22, 1955, meeting was not
publicized as a disaffiliation meeting nor does it appeal that any disaffiliation vote, as
such, was taken, even though one of the Petitioner's witnesses testified that "there was
an understanding" that the balloting at the meeting was for the dual purpose of termi-
nating the contract and disaffiliating from the Intervenoi How esci no indication of an
intention to disaffiliate was forthcoming until the November 1, 1955, notice by the offi-
cers and stewards that they had "severed connections "
za See The Budd Company, 107 NLRB 116, 121 , Musi an Mai"i factui•ing Co , Inc , 114
NLRB 1307
ii This is shown by the record Moreover, there is no evidence that the ability of the
Local , as such, to administer the contract has been impaired by the defection of the unit
officers and stewaids.