NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

130 THIRD ANNUAL REPORT OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the unions took conflicting positions concerning negotiations with the
company. The Board, in finding that a question concerning representation
has arisen, stated :
In view of the existing impasse to negotiations, the Oil Workers filed its
petition, alleging the existence of a question concerning representation. In the
petition and at the hearing the Oil Workers claim'ed to represent a majority
of the employees within the same appropriate bargaining unit for which the
joint agency had been certified previously and asked to be named as the exclusive
representative of all such employees. During the course of the hearing
claims were also made by this organization that it represented a majority
of employees within any units which might be contended for by the four craft
unions represented in the joint agency.
A stipulation entered into between the company and the petitioning
labor organization acknowledging that a question has arisen concerning
the representation of the persons employed by the company may
be the basis for a finding that such a question exists. Matter of
New York Mail & Newspaper Transportation Co. 19 The uncontroverted
allegation in the petition of facts which show the existence of
a question concerning representation may also be the basis for finding
that such a question has arisen. In Matter. of Tidewater Associated
Oil Corapany, 20 the Board said :
In each petition it was alleged that the Company involved had refused to
bargain collectively until the Union was certified by the Board as a proper
exclusive bargaining agency on the basis of a ballot vote. Beyond this the
record contains nothing, either in support of or refutation of the statements
in the petitions.
We find that questions have arisen concerning representation of employees
of the Companies . . szu
In Matter of Flexo Products Corporation, 22 the petitioning union
claimed that at each of three conferences with the Company it stated
that it represented a majority and demanded recognition. The
Board's decision continues :
* * * The Company stated that, although it has been at all times ready
and willing to recognize as collective bargaining agent any group which could
prove that it represented a majority of the employees, the Union had failed
to produce proof that it represented such a majority, and has neither requested
recognition as collective bargaining agent nor made any demands for
the negotiation of a collective bargaining agreement. We note that despite
this testimony, the Company in its answer admitted the existence of a question
concerning the representation of its employees.
In view of the admitted holding of conferences between the Union and the
Company and the latter's admission of the existence of a question concerning
representation, we find that a question has arisen concerning the representation
of the employees of the Company.
"Matter of New York Mail d Newspaper Transportation CO. and Committee for Industrial
Organization, on Behalf of the Employees of the New York Mail d Newspaper Transportation
Co., 4 N. L. R. B. 1066.
'Matter of Tidewater Associated Oil Company and American Radio Telegraphists'
Association, 5 N. L. R. B. 954.
al See Matter of Edna Cotton Mills Corporation and Textile Workers Organizing Committee,
5 N. L. R. B. 709, for a similar finding of a question concerning representation
based upon the allegations of the petition, together with the additional factor of a current
strike. The Board found : "The T. W. 0. C., in its petition, alleges that a question
of representation has arisen. The record contains no facts which tend to controvert this
allegation. Moreover, the record shows that a strike was in progress at the mill of the
Company at the time of the hearing." With reference to the existence of a strike as the
basis for finding that a question has arisen, see Matter of Sheba Ann Frocks, Inc. and
International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union of America, Locals 121 and 504, 3 N. L. R.
B. 97, in which the company denied that the union had ever requested it th negotiate.
Without resolving the conflict of testimony, the Board concluded: "In any event, the evidence
shows that . . . a strike was called . . . which, at the time of the hearing, was still
in progress."
ti Matter of Flew° Products Corporation and International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers, Local B-7.1.8„ 7 N. L. R. B. 1163.