Mission Appliance Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsApr 30, 1953

104 N.L.R.B. 577 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

MISSION APPLIANCE CORPORATION 577 committed by the Respondent were aimed at undermining the Union and destroying its majority status throughout the unit. There is little doubt but that the impact of the unfair labor practices was systemwide. The danger of future unfair labor practices is as great in one part of the system as in another. The Board therefore reaffirms the need for extending its order to all parts of the Respondent's pipeline system.' As the Respondent' s motion is without merit, we shall deny it. ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Respondent's motion to reconsider the Board's order of March 6, 1953, and to limit the scope thereof, be, and it hereby is, denied. 7N. L. R. a v. United Mine Workers of America, 195 F. 2d 961 (C. A. 6); N. L. R. B. v. T. W. Phillips Gas & Oil Company, 141 F. 2d 304 (C.A. 3). MISSION APPLIANCE CORPORATION and SHEET METAL WORKERS' INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION, LOCAL 371, AFL, Petitioner. Case No. 21-RC-2886. April 30, 1953 DECISION AND ORDER Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before George H. O'Brien , hearing officer . The hearing officer ' s rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three -member panel [ Members Houston , Styles, and Peter- son]. 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 employees of the Employer. 3. No 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, for the following reasons: The Intervenor (Association of Gas Appliance Workers) contends that its current contract , which covers the produc- tion , maintenance , and office clerical employees at the Em- ployer ' s Los Angeles and Hawthorne , California , plants, constitutes a bar to this proceeding . The Petitioner, which seeks a unit of only production and maintenance employees at these plants of the Employer , contends that the current contract is not a bar because a schism has occurred within 578 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the Intervenor. The Employer is neutral with respect to this issue. The Intervenor, an unaffiliated labor organization, has been the recognized bargaining representative of the Employer's employees since 1946.1 The current contract, urged as a bar, went into effect March 24, 1952, and, subject to a 60-day automatic renewal clause, will expire March 24, 1954. In September or October 1952, the Intervenor and Employer began negotiations which led to five amendments to their basic agreement of March 1952. Among the amendments was a job- evaluation plan which Wayne Newell, an employee and then a steward in the welding department, conceived would result in wage reductions for certain employees. When, as steward, Newell informed the employees in his department of the plan, they rejected it, and 3 or 4 of them requested an "outside union." At the suggestion of several of these employees, Newell contacted the Petitioner and obtained authorization cards, which he, aided by others, distributed in order to secure s.ignatures.Z The Intervenor and Employer, in the meantime, were completing negotiations on the five amendments, which were ratified by a vote of the members of the Intervenor in both plants on November 6' and were signed on November 7. Thereafter, the group of employees, including Newell, desiring affiliation with the Petitioner constituted themselves a 3- or 4-man committee to effect the affiliation. On November 22 and November 25, after unsuccessful attempts to have the Intervenor's officers call a meeting, this committee, by then somewhat expanded in membership, conducted meetings at which it sought to achieve affiliation in a manner consistent with the Intervenor's constitution and bylaws.' Approximately 100 of the more than 350 employees and members of the Intervenor attended the second meeting, at which it was moved and voted unanimously that the Intervenor affiliate with the Petitioner. Although invited to attend, the Intervenor's officers did not attend. Instead, the Intervenor's president, on the day of the second meeting, posted a bulletin notifying the members that the meeting, which had been previously announced, was "without any official sanction by the officers of your Union . . ." and advising the members "not to waste . . . time in any meetings called by a rump group. . . ." Subsequent to these meetings, a petition and a resolution requesting affiliation, both of which many employees signed, were circulated on different occasions by the committee for affiliation. I From 1941 to 1946, United Factory Workers' Union, the Intervenor's predecessor, was the recognized representative of these employees. 2 The Petitioner filed a representation petition with the Board on October 31, 1952, submitting its authorization cards . On November 14, the Regional Director advised the Petitioner that the current contract barred the petition until 1954. On December 2, that petition was withdrawn. The present petition was filed on December 12, 1952. 8 This was the second such balloting on the amendments. The first, held October 31, resulted in a tie. 4The Petitioner rendered the committee certain financial and other assistance in these meetings, as in other activities. However, in view of our ultimate determination herein, we do not decide whether or not the meetings were those of the Petitioner. Cf. Irving Berlin and Dennis Berlin, Co-partners, t/a Dennis-Mitchell Industries, 101 NLRB 846. NEW YORK CITY OMNIBUS CORPORATION 579 The Intervenor, although it conducted but one meeting in 1952,6 has nevertheless continued to function as the recognized bargaining representative of these employees. Its officers, who comprise the executive board, still hold office; stewards' meetings are regularly held and well attended; grievances have continued to be duly processed; and a clear majority of the employees remain as dues-paying members. The Board, in recent decisions, has indicated that the schism doctrine is not to become an unqualified exception to the contract-bar rule.6 Without deciding the validity of thevarious actions above that relate to the alleged affiliation with the Petitioner, we note that the Intervenor remains the effective and identifiable bargaining representative of these employees. We are persuaded that an exception to the contract=bar rule in this case would serve only to permit a dissident group of employees to express their dissatisfaction with the current contract and current contractual representative at a time the Board generally considers inappropriate. We find, under all the circumstances, that the schism doctrine is inapplicable here and that the Intervenor's current contract operates to bar a present determination of representatives.T We shall there- fore dismiss the petition, but without prejudice to the timely filing of a new petition. OFWE R Upon the basis of the entire record in this case, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the petition filed herein be, and it hereby is, dismissed. 5 The Intervenor 's constitution and bylaws provide for monthly membership meetings. 6 See, e .g., Canfield Oil Company , 99 NLRB 688. 7 Allied Container Corporation, 98 NLRB 580; West Steel Casting Company, 98 NLRB 153. Although the current contract covers both production and maintenance employees and office clerical employees , such circumstance does not remove the contract as a bar. Cf. Sonotone Corporation, 100 NLRB 1127; Socony Vaccuum Oil Company, incorporated, 99 NLRB 268. NEW YORK CITY OMNIBUS CORPORATION and IN- DEPENDENT LEAGUE OF BUS SUPERVISORS, IN- SPECTION FOREMEN AND RECEIVERS OF NEW YORK CITY OMNIBUS CORPORATION , Petitioner . Case No. 2- RC-5242. April 30, 1953 DECISION AND ORDER Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 ( c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before I. L. Broadwin and Louis I. Siegel, hearing officers .' The hearing officers' 'Because of the illness of I. L. Broadwin , Louis I. Siegel was substituted for him pursuant to Section 102.56 of the Rules and Regulations of the Board. 104 NLRB No. 83.