The Mosier Safe Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 31, 1974

216 N.L.R.B. 9 (N.L.R.B. 1974)

THE MOSLER SAFE COMPANY 9
The Mosier Safe Company and Local No. 1862,
International Union, United Automobile, Aero-
space and Agricultural and Implement Workers of
America, UAW, Petitioner. Case 9-RC-10601
December 31, 1974
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF
ELECTION
BY ACTING CHAIRMAN FANNING AND
MEMBERS KENNEDY AND PENELLO
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a
hearing was held before Hearing Officer Daniel J.
Roketenetz. Thereafter, pursuant to Section 102.67
of the National Labor Relations Board Rules and
Regulations and Statements of Procedure, Series 8,
as amended, the Acting Regional Director for
Region 9 transferred this proceeding to the National
Labor Relations Board for decision. The Employer,
Petitioner, and Intervenor Safe Workers' Organiza-
tion, Chapter No. 2 (herein Safe Workers), have filed
briefs.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's
rulings made at the hearing and finds that they are
free from prejudicial error. The rulings are hereby
affirmed.
On the entire record of this proceeding, including
the briefs, the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act and it
will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert
jurisdiction herein.
2. The labor organization involved claims to
represent certain employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concern-
ing the representation of certain employees of the
Employer within the meaning of Sections 9(cxl) and
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Employer has, since the mid-1930's,
recognized Safe Workers as the exclusive bargaining
representative of a unit of production , maintenance,
and warehouse employees at its Fairfield and
Hamilton, Ohio, plants. Since that time, both parties
have entered into a series of successive collective-
1 Cases 9-RM-650 and 9-RC-9374 (unpublished). The certified collec-
tive-bargaining unit is as follows:
All production and maintenance employees of the Employer at its
Hamilton and Fairfield, Ohio, plants , including warehouse employees,
but excluding all research and development employees at the Fairfield,
Ohio , plant, service employees, polishers, buffers, platers and helpers
216 NLRB No. 23
bargaining agreements. Following a representation
election conducted on June 30, 1972, after which the
Safe Workers was certified on July 11, 1972, as the
exclusive bargaining representative in the appropri-
ate unit,l the parties executed a new collective-
bargaining agreement on October 23, 1972, effective
to March 5, 1975.
On November 4, 1973, Safe Workers called a
special meeting for the purpose of voting as to
whether the Safe Workers should affiliate with the
International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace
and Agricultural and Implement Workers of Ameri-
ca, UAW (herein UAW). Out of the approximately
800 employees in the appropriate unit, all of whom
were members of Safe Workers, 447 employees
voted; the tally reflected a vote of 258 employees for
affiliation and 189 employees against affiliation.
Thereafter the president of UAW notified the
Employer in writing of the Safe Workers' vote in
favor of affiliation with UAW, and International
representatives of UAW formally requested that
Employer now recognize UAW. The Employer
refused to recognize UAW, stating instead that it was
obligated to deal exclusively with Safe Workers, the
exclusive bargaining representative. Whereupon
UAW, on November 9, 1973, filed an AC petition
requesting that its name be substituted for Safe
Workers in the certification. After a hearing, the
Board, on May 28, 1974, dismissed the petition; 2
pointing to the close margin in the affiliation vote
and the rejection of UAW by unit employees in two
recent Board elections, the Board concluded that
opinion as to the merits of UAW affiliation was so
sharply divided among employees as to give rise to a
question concerning representation which could only
be resolved in a Board election.
The UAW thereupon, on June 6, 1974, filed the
instant RC petition. The Regional Director for
Region 9, on June 18, 1974, dismissed the petition,
holding that the current collective-bargaining agree-
ment between the Employer and Safe Workers acted
as a bar. However, the Board, on July 30, 1974,
granted UAW's petition for review, reinstated the
RC petition, and ordered a hearing to resolve the
factual question as to whether or not Safe Workers
was defunct, as UAW alleged, so as to remove the
collective-bargaining agreement as a bar to the
election.
Petitioner contends that by virtue of the November
4, 1973, special Safe Workers meeting, wherein a
employed in the polishing and plating department who are represented
by another bargaining agent, all plant clerical employees who are
represented by another bargaining agent , and all administrative,
executive, and professional employees, engineering department em-
ployees, timekeepers. office employees , clerks to foremen , guards and
watchmen , foremen , and all other supervisors as defined in the Act.
2 210 NLRB 934.
10 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
majority of unit employees in attendance voted to
affiliate with UAW, Safe Workers is now defunct,
and' its collective-bargaining agreement with the
Employer therefore is not a bar to an election. Safe
Workers and the Employer, on the other hand, take
the position that procedural and substantive irregu-
larities rendered the affiliation vote invalid; and
assuming, arguendo, the validity of the affiliation
vote, Safe Workers is not defunct in that a substan-
tial number of employees regard themselves as
independent of UAW affiliation and have expressed
a desire that Safe Workers remain an independent
entity.3
The Board has held that a petition will not be
dismissed, even though prematurely filed, if a
hearing is directed despite the prematurity of the
petition and the Board's decision issues on or after
the 90th day preceding the expiration date of the
contract.4 Given the expiration date of the current
collective-bargaining agreement, March 5, 1975, this
is the situation here. We therefore find it unnecessary
to consider the above contentions of the Employer,
the Petitioner, and Intervenor Safe Workers as the
existing contract is, under the circumstances, not a
bar to the petition. Accordingly, we shall direct an
election among the employees in the appropriate
unit, with Petitioner and both Intervenors appearing
on the ballot.
[Direction of Election and Excelsior footnote
omitted from publication.]
3 Local Union No. 522, International Association of Bridge , Structural 4 Royal Crown Cola Bottling Co of Sacramento, 150 NLRB 1624 (1965),
and Ornamental Iron Workers (herein Iron Workers), intervened at the cf. Wesiclox Division of Genera! Time Corporation, 195 NLRB 1107 (1972).
hearing , but took no position on the issue of defunctness