The Baldwin Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 23, 1949

81 N.L.R.B. 927 (N.L.R.B. 1949)

In the Matter of THE BALDWIN COMPANY , EMPLOYER and INTERNA-
TIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE WORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL,
PETITIONER
Case No. 9-RC-127.-Decided February 03, 1949
DECISION
AND
ORDER
Upon an amended petition duly filed, a hearing was held before a
hearing officer of the National Labor Relations Board. The hear-
ing 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-man panel consisting of Chairman Herzog and
Members Houston 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 and Baldwin Employees Association, an unaffil-
iated organization, herein called the Intervenor, are labor organiza-
tions claiming to represent employees of the Employer.
3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the represen-
tation of employees of the Employer, within the meaning of Section
9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act for the following
reasons: •
The Petitioner filed a petition on April 13, 1948, claiming to repre-
sent the production and maintenance employees of the "Baldwin
Piano Company." On May 25, 1948, the Petitioner amended its pe-
tition to name the "Baldwin Company" as the Employer. However,
the Baldwin Company and the Intervenor had executed a collective
bargaining agreement covering all production and maintenance em-
ployees on May 20, 1948, and both parties to the contract contend that
this contract is a bar to the present proceeding.
The Baldwin Company, herein called the Company, is engaged in
the manufacture of pianos and electronic organs at its plant in Cin-
cinnati, Ohio. It has approximately 1,200 production and main-
81 N. L. R. B., No. 139. 927
928 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tenance employees in the unit sought by the Petitioner. The Baldwin
Piano Company, herein called the Piano Company, is a wholly owned
subsidiary of the Company, engaged in the retail sale and service of
pianos, organs, and other musical merchandise in Cincinnati, and in
other large cities throughout the United States. The Piano Company
has offices in the same building as the Company, where it employs
approximately 12 production and maintenance employees. Each em-
ployer is a separate legal entity performing a different function, and
maintaining separate pay rolls and records. There is no interchange
of personnel. Although the officers of both corporations are identical,
labor relations for the two employers are handled by different
individuals.
The Intervenor has represented employees of the Company since
1937. On December 10, 1943, the Petitioner participated in a hear-
ing on a petition filed by the Intervenor herein. Following the Di-
rection of Election in that case,' the Intervenor was certified by the
Board on March 2, 1944, as the collective bargaining representative
of all the production and maintenance employees of the Company.
Since that time, the Intervenor and the Company have negotiated
annual contracts. The contract preceding the current one was exe-
cuted on May 20, 1947, to be in effect for 1 year, automatically renew-
able thereafter absent 60 days' notice of intention to modify or termi-
nate the agreement. The Intervenor gave notice 60 days prior to the
termination date that it desired to amend the agreement; and, after
several weeks of negotiations, the Intervenor and the Company exe-
cuted a new contract on May 20, 1948, effective for 1 year from the
date of execution.
The Petitioner renewed its organizational activity among employ-
ees of the Company in the early part of 1948. On five occasions
between the first of March and the middle of May 1948, the Petitioner
distributed handbills or copies of its newspaper at the entrances of the
plant occupied by the Company and the Piano Company. The news-
paper articles were addressed to employees of the "Baldwin
Company."
On March 18, 1948, the Petitioner wrote to "J. P. Thornton, Vice-
President, Baldwin Piano Co., Cincinnati, Ohio," stating that "a
majority of the employees of the Baldwin Piano Co. of Cincinnati,
Ohio, have selected and designated the UAW-AFL as their collective
bargaining agency." This letter was answered by George W. Law-
rence, vice president of the Piano Company.
On April 13, 1948, the Petitioner filed its petition naming the
Piano Company as the Employer. The Regional Director, by letter
1 Matter of The Baldwin Company, 54 N. L. R B. 1020.
THE BALDWIN COMPANY 929
dated April 15, 1948, notified the Piano Company and the Intervenor
that a petition covering "all production and maintenance employees"
had been filed.2
On May 18, 1948, the Regional Director notified the attorney who
represents both the Company and the Piano Company that a confer-
ence in the matter of "Baldwin Piano Company" was scheduled for
May 25, 1948. When the attorney produced the employment records
of the Piano Company at this conference, the Petitioner stated that
these records did not cover the employees it was seeking to represent,
discovered that it had designated the wrong employer, and immedi-
ately amended its petition to designate the Company.
The Petitioner contends that the current contract is not a bar to
this proceeding because its original petition was filed prior to the exe-
cution of the contract ; and, further, that the amendment of the
petition was not a material change because the Company had knowl-
edge, by virtue of the Petitioner's organizing campaign, that the Peti-
tioner was organizing and seeking to represent employees of the Com-
pany. We have frequently held, however, that campaigning is not
equivalent to a claim by an organization that it represents a majority
of the employees and requests exclusive bargaining rights.3
On the basis of the foregoing facts, and from the entire record in
this case, we find that the Company did not receive notification of the
Petitioner's claim for representation prior to its execution of a valid
contract with the Intervenor, and, therefore, that the contract of May
20, 1948, is a bar to a present determination of representatives 4
Accordingly, we shall dismiss the petition.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the entire record in this case, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the petition filed in the instant
matter be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
a Information such as "nature of business " and "number of employees " contained in the
petition clearly indicates that the Petitioner intended the Company , not the Piano Com-
pany, as the Employer , but neither the Company nor the Piano Company received a copy
of the petition Board Rules and Regulations require service of the petition when the
notice of hearing is served, but not prior thereto. Section 203.55, Rules and Regulations-
Series 5 , as amended.
I Matter of Electro Metallurgical Company, 72 N. L. R. B. 1396 , and cases cited therein.
4 See Matter of Narragansett Electric Company , 64 N L. R B 1492.