International Harvester Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 13, 1964

145 N.L.R.B. 1747 (N.L.R.B. 1964)

INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER CO., WIS. STEEL WORKS 1747
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered , defaced , or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office, 1700
Bankers Securities Building, Walnut and Juniper Streets , Philadelphia , Pennsylvania,
Telephone No. 735-2612 , if they have any questions concerning this notice or com-
pliance with its provisions.
International Harvester Company, Wisconsin Steel Works and
Harvester Guards Union , Petitioner. Case No. 13-RC-8963.
February 13, 1964
DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
REVOKE CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election
executed by the parties herein on November 1, 1962, an election was
conducted in the above-entitled proceeding, and on November 20,
1962, the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region issued a certifi-
cation of representative, certifying the Petitioner as the collective-
bargaining representative for an appropriate unit of the Employer's
guards at its Wisconsin Steel Works in Chicago, Illinois.
On July 15, 1963, the Employer filed a motion requesting order
rescinding certification, alleging that, by certain conduct, the Peti-
tioner had become indirectly affiliated with Local 743, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers
of America, a union admitting to membership employees other than
guards; and, therefore, the Petitioner was not entitled to Board certi-
fication pursuant to Section 9(b) (3) of the National Labor Relations
Act. On August 2, 1963, the Petitioner filed a response in opposition
to the Employer's motion. On August 14, 1963, the Employer filed
an affidavit in support of its motion.
On August 16, 1963, the Board, after duly considering the matter,
issued an order remanding the proceeding to the Regional Director
for the purpose of conducting a hearing on the issues raised by the
Employer's motion and the Petitioner's opposition thereto. On Sep-
tember 24,1963, a hearing was accordingly held before Hearing Officer
Jerry P. Clousson. The Hearing Officer's rulings made at the hear-
ing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Briefs
were thereafter filed by the Employer and the Petitioner.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers herein to a three-member panel [Members
Leedom, Fanning, and Brown].
Upon the entire record in this case, including the briefs,' the Board
finds :
1 Both parties requested oral argument . As the record and briefs in our opinion ade-
quately present the issues and the positions of the parties, the requests for oral argument
are denied.
145 NLRB No. 170.
734-070-64-vol. 145-112
1748 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
In March 1963 De Santo, president of the Petitioner, contacted one
Rosenbloom, an attorney who had previously represented the Peti-
tioner, and requested that he again represent the Petitioner. From
March to June 1963, Rosenbloom represented the Petitioner at seven
negotiating sessions with the Employer. Around the middle of June,
Rosenbloom met with one Peters, president of Teamsters Local 743,
told him that the Petitioner had reached an impasse in bargaining
with the Employer, and asked him if Teamsters Local 743 would help
the Petitioner. Peters agreed to help.
Around the third week of June, a meeting was held in Rosenbloom's
office at which Peters, Rosenbloom, and a committee of the Petitioner
were present, and the proposition of Petitioner's affiliation with
Teamsters Local 743 was considered but rejected.
A day or so later, another meeting was held in Rosenbloom's office
with most of the membership of Petitioner, Rosenbloom, and Peters
present. The members voted 17 to 0 at this meeting to affiliate with
Teamsters Local 743. Rosenbloom then suggested that the Petitioner
send out formal notice that a vote would be taken on the question of
affiliation with the Teamsters.
On July 1, 1963, pursuant to such notice, a formal vote was held
on affiliating with Teamsters Local 743, and the membership voted
22 to 2 to affiliate.
On July 3, 1963, De Santo informed the Employer that the Peti-
tioner had applied for a charter from the Teamsters. Sometime prior
to July 8, 1963, the Petitioner held a meeting in Peters' office to dis-
cuss further negotiations with the Employer.
On July 8, 1963, Peters, as president of Teamsters Local 743, ap-
peared at a negotiating session between the Employer and the Peti-
tioner, and told the Employer that he was taking a personal interest
in the Petitioner. Peters actively participated in the negotiating ses-
sion on behalf of the Petitioner and stated further that Teamsters
Local 743 would back the Petitioner's just demand 100 percent.
Peters also actively participated on behalf of the Petitioner in an-
other negotiating session with the Employer on July 17.
On July 18, 1963, Peters called another company (with whom
Teamsters Local 743 had a contract) to say that the Teamsters were
going out on strike at the Employer's plant and would keep the Com-
pany's trucks out. Peters also told the company to contact the Em-
ployer and advise it that there would be a strike within 24 hours,
that the Petitioner had affiliated with the Teamsters, and that a
majority of the Employer's guards had signed up.
At approximately 8:30 p.m. on July 18, the Petitioner went on
strike. On the following morning, Peters and several business agents
of the Teamsters took an active part in the organization and conduct
of the picketing. The Teamsters arranged for additional pickets and
INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER CO., WIS. STEEL WORKS 1749
picket signs. One side of the picket signs read : "Teamsters Local 743
supports Harvester Guards Union For Fair Contract."
By the time of the hearing, Teamsters Local 743 had given the
Petitioner between $18,000 and $19,000 to pay the pickets. The Peti-
tioner had a treasury of $400 but expended no money for the conduct
of the picketing.
On August 2, James Hoff a, president of the Teamsters Interna-
tional, discussed with the Employer what could be done to settle the
strike, and it was agreed that the Employer would negotiate further
with the Petitioner, and the Teamsters would withdraw their support
of the strike and it would end. The strike and picketing accordingly
ended at midnight of the same day.
Section 9 (b) (3) provides, inter alia, that:
[N]o labor organization shall be certified as the representative
of employees in a bargaining unit of guards if such organization
... is affiliated directly or indirectly with an organization which
admits to membership employees other than guards.
The question presented by these facts is whether the Petitioner
is indirectly affiliated with the Teamsters, a labor organization admit-
ting to membership employees other than guards, within the mean-
ing of Section 9 (b) (3).
The Board has refused to find indirect affiliation where, on the
record, it appeared that the assistance and advice once received by the
guard union from the nonguard union had, in fact, terminated .2
The Board explained that mutual sympathy, common purpose, and
assistance between such unions was "not, without more, indicative of
`indirect affiliation' within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act." 3
Thus, a mere showing that the guard union had used the meeting hall
of a nonguard union rent-free; 4 that assistance was provided to the
guard union in its organizational stage; 5 or that the nonguard union
had recommended an attorney and mimeographed membership cards
for the guard union,' was found insufficient to establish that the guard
union was not free to formulate its own policies and decide its own
course of action independently. Such facts alone will not necessarily
support a finding of indirect affiliation within the meaning of Sec-
tion 9(b) (3).
Turning to the case at hand, the facts show that the Petitioner has
continued to accept substantial financial aid from the nonguard union;
2lnspiratson Consolidated Copper Company, 142 NLRB 53; Ingersoll-Rand Company,
119 NLRB 601; Federal Services, Inc., 115 NLRB 1729.
3 The Midvale Company, 114 NLRB 372, 374. See also International Haraester Com-
pany, 81 NLRB 374.
1 International Harvester Company, supra, footnote 3.
5 TVestenghouse Electric Corporation (Lima, Ohio, Plant), 96 NLRB 1250; Federal
Services, Inc , supra , footnote 2 ; Ingersoll-Rand Company, supra, footnote 2 ; Inspiration
Consolidated Copper Company, supra, footnote 2.
6 The Midvale Company, supra, footnote 3.
1750 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
has continued to permit the nonguard union to participate in its af-
fairs; has continued to permit the nonguard union to act as its
negotiator, to organize and conduct its strike, and to set the terms for
the settlement of the strike. These facts indicate to us that the
Petitioner is not presently free to formulate its own policies and
decide its own course of action, with the complete independence from
control by the nonguard union which the Act requires, and is in-
directly affiliated with said nonguard union 7
The Petitioner in effect argues that Section 9(b) (3) was meant to
apply only where, unlike here, there is affiliation between a guard
union and a nonguard union which represents employees in the same
plant. In other words, the Petitioner asserts that Congress was
interested only in preventing plant guards from facing a conflict of
interest or loyalty as between their employer and a union representing
other employees in the same plant.
It is true that the legislative history of Section 9(b) (3) provides
some support for such a proposition. The House bill would have
completely eliminated plant guards from the definition of "em-
ployee"; the Senate bill, at the other extreme, would have continued
the practice of treating plant guards exactly like all other employees;
and Section 9(b) (3), set forth above, was the conference compromise
between these two divergent views. The legislative history, for the
most part, is limited to explanatory statements expressed in the very
words of the provisions of Section 9(b) (3).
In a summary of the principal differences between the conference
agreement and the bill which the Senate had previously passed,
Senator Taft stated that the conferees "were impressed with the rea-
soning of the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in the
Jones and Laughlin case." 8 Moreover, in a colloquy with Senator
Murray, Senator Taft stated :
We compromised with the House by providing that they [plant
guards] should have the protection of the Wagner Act but in a
separate unit from the workers in the plants.'
The language of Section 9(b) (3), however, is not limited to the
divided-loyalty situation referred to by Senator Taft as an example,
but is broader. Section 9(b) (3) provides that the Board may not
certify a guard union if it is even indirectly affiliated with a union
7 Mack Manufacturing Corporation , 107 NLRB 209 ; The Magnavox Company, 97
NLRB 1111.
s In that case the court denied enforcement of the Board 's order, under the Wagner Act,
requiring the employer to bargain collectively with the union ( Steelworkers ) as the repre-
sentative of the guards , because the union also represented the guards ' fellow employees
(154 F. 2d 932 ). In other words, the guards had divided loyalties , because of their
membership in the same union as the plant's other employees.
Senator Taft 's statement is set forth in Legislative History of the Labor Management
Relations Act of 1947 , p. 1541.
1 Id., p. 1572.
NORTH AMERICA ASSURANCE SOCIETY OF VIRGINIA 1751
which "admits to membership employees other than guards," without
regard to the situation at the particular plant involved. Accordingly,
in the first cases interpreting Section 9 (b) (3), the Board held that
there was indirect affiliation where a nonguard union was affiliated
with the AFL or CIO, without determining if there was an AFL or
CIO union representing any nonguard employees in the same plant.'°
The Board was concerned only with whether there was such affiliation,
and not with whether the guards would be faced with a conflict of in-
terest or loyalty at their particular plant. In our opinion, the mere
fact that "indirect affiliation" is found here through continuing aid
and assistance from a nonguard union rather than through "direct
affiliation" with an international nonguard union is not a sufficient
distinction upon which to base a different result.
We find that in this case there is "indirect affiliation" between the
Petitioner and Teamsters Local 743 within the meaning of Section
9(b) (3) and that the Petitioner is not entitled to Board certification.
Accordingly, the Employer's motion is granted.
[The Board revoked the certification heretofore issued to the Har-
vester Guards Union as the collective-bargaining representative of all
plant guards, patrolmen, and fire equipment inspectors of Interna-
tional Harvester Company, Wisconsin Steel Works, Chicago, Illinois,
and dismissed the petition.]
10 Schenley Distilleries , Inc., Old Quaker Division, 77 NLRB 468; General Motors
Corporation, Cadillac Motor Car Division , 77 NLRB 1029.
North America Assurance Society of Virginia, Inc. and Insurance
Workers International Union , AFL-CIO. Case No. 5-CA-f523.
February 14, 1964
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a charge duly filed on July 19, 1963, by Insurance Workers
International Union, AFL-CIO, against North America Assurance
Society of Virginia, Inc., herein called the Respondent, the General
Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board duly issued and served
upon the Respondent a complaint and notice of hearing, dated July
23,1963. The complaint alleged that Respondent had engaged in and
was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 8(a) (1) and (5) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, herein called the Act.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged in
substance that since on or about July 15, 1963, the Respondent refused
to bargain with the Union as the duly certified exclusive collective-
145 NLRB No. 167.