Chicago Bridge & Iron Company, Employer And Truck Drivers & Chauffeurs Union, Local 478, International Brotherhood Of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers, Afl, 402 (1950)

Docket Number:2-RC-1411
Party Name:407

In the Matter of CHICAGO BRIDGE & IRON COMPANY, EMPLOYER and TRUCK DRIVERS & CHAUFFEURS UNION, LOCAL 478, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN &

HELPERS, AFL Case No. 2-RC-1411.-Decided January 31, 1950 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before Lloyd S.

Greenidge, 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 National Labor Relations Act the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Reynolds and Murdock].

Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds:

  1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.

  2. The Petitioner, Truck Drivers & Chauffeurs Union, Local 478, affiliated with the A. F. of L., and the Intervenor, Independent Erection Equipment Maintenance Union, are labor organizations claiming to represent certain employees of the Employer.

  3. The question concerning representation:

The Employer contends that its contract with the Intervenor is a bar to this proceeding.

On January 3, 1949, the Petitioner notified Assistant Manager Stoffer, of the Employer's Hillside, New Jersey, plant,1 that it represented a majority of its Hillside drivers and helpers. At the same time, it forwarded a copy of a proposed contract to Clarke, manager of the erection department, at the Chicago main office. On January 26, a conference was held between representatives of the Employer and the Petitioner, at which the Petitioner submitted 12 membership cards to the Employer as well as a proposed contract.2 The proposed 'The proceedings, herein, concern only the Hillside, New Jersey, plant.

These included all but one of the drivers and helpers employed at Hillside.

88 NLRB No. 75.

contract was rejected on the ground that it did not suit the Employer's particular business; nevertheless many of its substantive provisions, including wages, over the road expenses, and others, were discussed.

Meetings between the parties continued in February and March.

Meanwhile between January 7 and 15, the Employer was notified of the claim of the Intervenor that it represented the majority of all the employees in the shop, including the drivers. Negotiations between the Employer and Intervenor took place between February 10 and 15, and on March 23, the Employer signed a contract with Intervenor.3 Eight days later, on March 31, Clarke stopped at Hillside on his way to Europe, and another conference took place attended by Clarke,

Guerin, manager of the Hillside plant, and Aimon, organizer for Petitioner, at which practically all the important provisions of the proposed contract were discussed. At this meeting, Clarke advised Aimon, for the first time, that the Employer had signed a contract with the Intervenor, and gave Aimon a copy of the agreement. Clarke suggested that further meetings be postponed until his return from Europe and that in the meantime Aimon prepare a condensed form of the proposed contract. Such contract was submitted to Guerin on April 20.4 On June 14, Aimon and most of the drivers met with Guerin concerning the signing of the contract. According to Aimon, the Employer then demanded a Board certification of Petitioner. Aimon objected and threatened to call a strike, if Petitioner...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP