International Harvester Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 29, 1954

108 N.L.R.B. 600 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

600 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
men operate the hybrid presses which combine both the
letterpress and the offset process.4 The Employer is cur-
rently endeavoring to train all pressmen to operate both
types of equipment and has offered a bonus to those who are
able to operate more than one piece of such equipment.
Where, as here, there is a considerable degree of integra-
tion between the letterpress employees and those in the
lithographic process, and no party seeks to represent sepa-
rately the lithographic employees, we have recognized that
these employees have related interests and may constitute a
separate unit.5 Moreover, the record, in our opinion, fails to
reveal such close integration of functions and interchange of
employees between these departments and the remainder of
the Employer's operations as to preclude their separate
representation.
We find that all employees in the pressrooms, both offset
and letterpress, and in the camera and plate department of
the Employer at its Houston, Texas, plant, including all
pressmen, both letter and offset pressmen, their helpers,
apprentices, operators, cameramen, strippers, platemakers,
plate proofreaders, and plate file clerk, but excluding all
other employees, office employees, guards, watchmen, and all
supervisors within the meaning of the Act, constitute a unit
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within
the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.
4 Apparently three hybrid or combination presses have been acquired by the Employer
since the Amalgamated Lithographers of America sought, and the Board found, a unit of the
Employer's lithographic production employees appropriate. The Rein Company, Case No.
39-RC-270, decided February 12, 1951 (not reported in printed volumes of Board DecIsions
and Orders).
A total of 50 percent of the Employer's printing production is done on these hybrid or
combination presses.
5 Master-Craft Corporation, 92 NLRB 524; Messenger Corporation, 94 NLRB No. 86
(not reported in printed volumes of Board Decisions and Orders).
INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER COMPANY, EAST MOLINE
WORKS and INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMO-
BILE, AIRCRAFT AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT
WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO' AND ITS FE LOCAL 104
UAW-CIO., 2 Petitioner
iHereinafter referred to as UAW-CIO.
2 Hereinafter referred to as 104 UAW.
108 NLRB No. 91.
INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER COMPANY, EAST MOLINE WORKS 601
INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER COMPANY, EAST MOLINE
WORKS and INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMO-
BILE, AIRCRAFT AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT
WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO AND ITS FE LOCAL 106
UAW-CIO, 3 Petitioner. Cases Nos. 13-RC-3542 and 13-RC-
3575. April 29, 1954
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9 ( c) of the
National Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held
before John P. Von Rohr , hearing officer . The hearing offi-
cer'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 mean-
ing of the Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent
certain employees of the Employer.'
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the
representation of employees of the Employer within the mean-
ing of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 ( 6) and ( 7) of the Act.
In Case No. 13-RC-3575, the Petitioner, UAW-CIO and
106 UAW, seeks to represent a unit of machine repair , experi-
mental , and toolroom employees , hereinafter referred to as
the machinists' unit. In Case No. 13-RC - 3542 , the Petitioner,
UAW-CIO and 104 UAW, seeks to represent all other pro-
duction and maintenance employees of the East Moline Works.
The Employer and the Intervenors, 104 UE and 106 UE, con-
tend that their current master contract covering the employees
in both units constitutes a bar to both petitions . The Petitioners
contend that the contract is not a bar because there have been
schisms in both units leading to confusion as to the identity of
the representative of such units . IAM took no position as to
contract bar.
Until 1949 the parent organization of 104 UE was United
Farm Equipment and Metal Workers , CIO. In October 1949
United Farm Equipment and Metal Workers became affil-
iated with UE. Shortly thereafter, at the annual convention
3Hereinafter referred to as 106 UAW.
4The requests of the Employer and Petitioners for oral argument are hereby denied, as
the record and briefs , in our opinion, adequately present the issues and the positions of the
parties.
5In Case No. 13-RC-3542, United Farm Equipment and Metal Workers, Local 104, HE,
hereinafter referred to as 104 HE, intervened on the basis of a current contractual interest.
In Case No. 13-RC-3575, United Farm Equipment and Metal Workers, Local 106 HE, herein-
after referred to as 106 UE , intervened on the basis of a current contractual interest, and
District Lodge No. 102, International Association of Machinists, AFL, hereinafter referred
to as IAM, intervened on the basis of a showing of interest. The hearing officer referred to
the Board motions by the Employer, 104 HE, and 106 UE to dismiss the petitions on the
ground of contract bar. These motions are denied for the reasons stated in the text.
602 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of CIO, United Farm Equipment and Metal Workers and UE
were expelled from CIO and their certificates of affiliation
were revoked .6 The cause of UE's expulsion , as stated in the
resolution of expulsion passed at the convention , was the
Communist domination of UE and its devotion to principles
inconsistent with the policies and objectives of CIO.' After
these expulsions , 104 UE continued as a local of United Farm
Equipment and Metal Workers, UE.
The Intervenor , 104 UE, represented all the production and
maintenance employees in a plantwide unit at the East Moline
Works from 1941 to July 1952, when, pursuant to a consent
election , the machinists ' unit was severed from the plantwide
unit. Although 104 UE won this election , it transferred to 106
UE the right to represent the machinists ' unit . Thereafter,
104 UE continued to represent the rest of the production and
maintenance employees . On November 15, 1952 , the Em-
ployer, UE, and all its locals which represented bargaining
units at International Harvester plants entered into a master
agreement covering all such units , including the two units here
involved. This contract expires on June 30, 1955.
On August 9, 1953 , a membership meeting of 106 UE, duly
noticed , was held at which disaffiliation from UE was con-
sidered . Over half of the members of 106 UE attended and
voted 48 to 3 to disaffiliate from UE. All of the officers of
106 UE were present and the meeting was conducted by its
president , Lyle Davis.
On August 16, 1953, the executive board of 106 UE met and
decided to conduct a vote on the following day after work
among its members in the machinists ' unit to determine
whether they wished to affiliate with UAW -CIO. Notice was
given to the members of 106 UE the following day to appear
at the headquarters of 104 UE after work to cast a written
ballot on this question . The result was a 34 to 7 vote in favor
of affiliation with UAW-CIO. On August 23 , 1953, 106 UE held
another membership meeting at which a second vote was
taken in favor of affiliation with UAW-CIO.
On August 16, 1953, a membership meeting -of 104 UE was
held pursuant to notice given its members in the usual manner
informing them that future affiliation was tobe discussed. This
meeting was attended by approximately twice the number usually
attending membership meetings . The members voted 45 to 2 to
disaffiliate from UE and 42 to 5 to affiliate with UAW-CIO.'
61949 Proceedings of the Eleventh Constitutional Convention of the Congress of Industrial
Organizations , pp 302 , 327, 334, 347.
7 United Farm Equipment and Metal Workers , which had already affiliated with UE at the
time of its expulsion , was separately expelled because it had failed to follow a previous
instruction of the CIO executive board to take steps toward affiliation with UAW-CIO.
6 The executive board of 104 UE had previously decided to recommend disaffiliation from
UE to its members and had mailed ballots to them to determine their sentiment . However,
the mail ballots were not returned and counted until August 24, 1953. The result was a 289
to 30 vote in favor of disaffiliation . This result was never announced to the membership as
it had already voted to disaffiliate at the membership meeting on August 16.
INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER COMPANY, EAST MOLINE WORKS 603
At both disaffiliation meetings , the belief of the members of 104
UE and 106 UE that UE was Communist dominated was advanced
as one of the reasons for disaffiliating from UE. Lyle Davis,
president of 106 UE prior to disaffiliation , stated at the 106
UE disaffiliation meeting that he favored disaffiliation because
UE was spending too much time and money protecting Com-
munists . Glen Roberts , grievance committee chairman of 106
UE, pointed out at that meeting that an overriding factor in the
decrease in the membership of 106 UE during the year prior
to its disaffiliation was communism in UE. Davis was present
at the disaffiliation meeting of 104 UE and stated that "one
of the prime reasons of [sic] 106 wanted out of UE was the
Communist influence ." He advised the members of 104 UE
to disaffiliate for that reason. Other officers and members of
both locals gave this as a reason in speaking in favor of
disaffiliation at both meetings. B
After the disaffiliation actions , both locals informed the
Employer that they had changed their affiliation to UAW-CIO
and identified themselves as 104 UAW and 106 UAW re-
spectively. Each requested the Employer to recognize it as
the representative of the employees in its respective unit. The
Employer refused to recognize either UAW-CIO local.
All the officers and stewards of 106 UE joined in the dis-
affiliation and since the disaffiliation there has been no ac-
tivity by 106 UE. All of the officers of 104 UE, except the
grievance committee chairman , as well as a number of its
stewards joined in the disaffiliation in that local. Shortly after
the disaffiliation , UE removed the disaffected officers and
stewards of 104 UE and appointed new officers and stewards.
The new officers and stewards have processed grievances
and have been recognized by the Employer, although no
membership meetings of 104 UE were held from the time of
the disaffiliation until the hearing in the instant case.
The Board ordinarily does not find that a question con-
cerning representation exists when a collective -bargaining
contract is in effect . When , however , the Board finds a schism
in the contracting union , it will , as an exception to its con-
tract -bar rule , direct an immediate election to determine the
bargaining agent. 11 In this case , the Board has examined the
facts presented and has reviewed its schism doctrine. The
9 The Employer and the UE locals contend that contract dissatisfaction rather than Com-
munist domination of UE caused the members of 104 UE and 106 UE to disaffiliate from UE
and affiliate with UAW. However, we are satisfied upon the entire record that the same
considerations which led to the expulsion of UE from CIO were at least a major factor in
the decision of the members of both locals to go over to UAW. In reaching this conclusion,
we are aware that the hearing officer rejected some exhibits and offers of proof of the Em-
ployer and the UE locals bearing on motive . Assuming that the matter thus sought to be
introduced had been admitted in the record, our conclusion would be unaffected.
liSee Boston Machine Works Company, 89 NLRB 59; cf. Saginaw Furniture Shops, Inc.,
97 NLRB 1488; Allied Container Corp., 98 NLRB 580; Mission Appliance Corporation, 104
NLRB 577.
604 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Board concludes that expulsion of a labor union by its parent
organization coupled with disaffiliation action at the local
level for reasons related to the expulsion disrupts any es-
tablished bargaining relationship between an employer and the
local union and creates such confusion that the existing con-
tract with such union no longer stabilizes industrial relations
between the employer and its employees. The circumstances
of this case demonstrate such confusion. Such confusion and
instability can only be prolonged by holding the existing con-
tract a bar. Accordingly, where the expulsion of a labor
organization from its parent has been followed by disaffiliation
at the local level for reasons related to the expulsion, as in
the instant case , the Board will find that a schism exists
which warrants directing in immediate election notwithstanding
the existence of a contract with the union suffering the schism
which would otherwise bar a determination of representative.
Accordingly, we find that the contract between the Employer
and the Intervenors 104 UE and 106 UE does not bar this
proceeding.ll
4. We find that the following units of employees of the Em-
ployer at its East Moline Works, as stipulated by the parties,
are appropriate.
(A) All production and maintenance employees excluding
salaried employees, supervisory employees on hourly rates
above the rank of working group leaders, factory clerical
employees, office clerical employees, indentured apprentices,
student executives, fire and watch employees (except production
and maintenance employees who act as volunteer fireman),
patternmaker apprentices, designers and trim diemakers,
employees of departments 19, 20, and 38 not excluded above,
guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
(B) All employees of department 19 (machine repair), de-
partment 20 ( experimental ), and department 38 (toolroom),
'IA. C. Lawrence Leather-Company, 108 NLRB 546.
The Employer contends that the schism doctrine should not be applied in the instant case
because the disaffiliation was not coextensive with all the plants covered by its master agree-
ment with UE. However, where, as here, the master agreement covers a number of units
for which bargaining agents have been separately certified, it is sufficient that the disaffil-
iation be coextensive with a single one of the several bargaining units covered by the master
agreement. General Electric Company Appliance Service Center, 96 NLRB 566. As each
of the disaffiliations in the instant case occurred in such a unit, we find no merit in this
contention.
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 Intervenors as a bar for reasons of broad public policy. Neither Local 104 UE nor
Local 106 UE was in compliance with requirements of Section 9 (h) of the Act when the
instant petitions were filed. Moreover, their parent organization, the UE, had previously
been expelled from the Congress of Industrial Organizations because of Communist dom-
ination. Under these circumstances the availability of theBoard'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.
In view of our disposition of this case it is not necessary to consider the other reasons
advanced by the Petitioners for finding no contract bar.
SECURITY ENTERPRISES 605
excluding office clerical employees , diesinkers , trim makers,
diesinking and duplicating machine operators , indentured
apprentices , guards , and supervisors as defined in the Act.
5. Contrary to the contentions of 104 UE and 106 UE, we
do not find that the designation of the UAW- CIO locals on the
ballot as 104 UAW and 106 UAW will create confusion in the
minds of the voters as to the identity of the participants in
the election . Accordingly , we grant the request of the Pe-
titioners that their names appear on the ballots as in the
caption herein. 12
The hearing officer referred to the Board a motion by 104
UE and 106 UE that any election directed herein should be
deferred until a representative complement of employees is
employed at the East Moline Works . The record indicates that
at the time of the hearing , because of recent layoffs, the
number of production and maintenance employees . was about
one-third of the number employed at the time of the disaffilia-
tion actions described above . The Employer stated that it did
not anticipate any substantial change in the number of em-
ployees in the immediate future . Accordingly , we see no
reasons to defer the election herein directed . Furthermore,
as stated in the direction of elections , those employees who
have been only temporarily laid off , will be eligible to vote.
The motion is therefore denied.
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.]
12 Sonotone Corporation, 90 NLRB 1236 at 1239. Participation of 104 UE and 106 UE
in the elections directed herein is conditioned upon their compliance with Section 9 (f),
(g), and (h) of the Act.
SECURITY ENTERPRISES DIVISION OF INDIANAPOLIS WIRE
BOUND BOX COMPANY and LOCAL 135 , INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS , CHAUFFEURS, WARE-
HOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA , AFL, Petitioner.
Case No . 35-RC-944. April 29, 1954
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND DIRECTION
On January 8, 1954 , pursuant to a Decision and Direction of
Election issued by the Board in the above -entitled case,' an
election was conducted , under the direction and supervision of
the Regional Director , among truckdrivers at the Employer's
Indianapolis , Indiana , plywood manufacturing and sales plant
in the unit found appropriate . Following the election , the Re-
gional Director issued and served upon the parties a tally of'
ballots , which shows that, of the 7 ballots cast in the election,
' Not reported in printed volumes of Board Decisions and Orders.
108 NLRB No. 97.