America Beef Packers, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 17, 1968

169 N.L.R.B. 215 (N.L.R.B. 1968)

AMERICA BEEF PACKERS, INC.
America Beef Packers, Inc. and United
Packinghouse, Food & Allied Workers , AFL-CIO,
District No. 3, Petitioner . Case 18-RC-7058
January 17, 1968
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND BROWN
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of
the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a
hearing was held before Hearing Officer Charles J.
Frisch. Thereafter the Petitioner and Intervenor
Morgan' each filed a brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel.
The Hearing Officer's rulings made at the hearing
are free from prejudicial error and are hereby af-
firmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board
finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the Act, and it will effectuate the
policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
2. The Petitioner is a labor organization claiming
to represent certain employees of the Employer.
3. No question affecting commerce exists con-
cerning the representation of employees of the Em-
ployer within the meaning of Sections 9(c)(1) and
2(6) and (7) of the Act for the following reasons.
The petition seeks a unit of the Employer's em-
ployees located at its Oakland, Iowa, beef
slaughtering plant. The Employer and Intervenor
Morgan assert that their prior 3-year collective-bar-
gaining contract, executed on January 17, 1967, is
a bar. The Petitioner contends, inter alia, that the
contract is not a bar because it contains an unlawful
checkoff clause.
The record shows that the Employer voluntarily
recognized' Intervenor Morgan, after a majority
showing of authorization cards, and shortly
thereafter said contract was negotiated between
them.
Article II of the contract is as follows:
i Arthur L Morgan, an individual who was recognized by the Employer
as the exclusive bargaining representative for all its production and main-
tenance employees , intervened at the hearing Amalgamated Meat Cutters
and Butcher Workmen of North America , AFL-CIO, also intervened.
2 Section 302 sets forth the conditions under which a checkoff may be
215
During the period of this agreement, the Com-
pany shall deduct, as to each employee who
shall authorize it in writing in the appropriate
form or whose valid and effective authorization
is now on file with the Company, and for so
long as such authorization shall remain valid or
effective, from the first pay payable to each
member each month, the regular monthly
Union dues and the initiation fee of the Union
and promptly remit the same to Arthur L. Mor-
gan.
The Petitioner contends that this article provides
for employer payments to an individual representa-
tive of his employees, a misdemeanor under Section
302 of the Landrum-Griffin Act of 1959 (Public
Law 86-257),2 and because of this unlawful
checkoff clause the contract is no bar to an election.
The Petitioner cites neither rules nor interpreta-
tions by any agency charged with the enforcement
of Section 302, nor any court decision, to support
its contention. Rather, it cites the Board case of The
Grand Union Company, 132 NLRB 1037,1038.
That case is distinguishable, however, in that it
involved an unfair labor practice issue arising from
a proviso to Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, authorizing
a union-security contract with a labor organization;
whereas the instant case involves a contract with
checkoff clause which allegedly constitutes a
misdemeanor, but not an unfair labor practice. The
Board held in Gary Steel Supply Company, 144
NLRB 470, 472-473, that such a contract will be
considered effective as a bar to a representation
proceeding, even though it Cintains a checkoff
provision which fails to spell out the requirements
of the proviso of Section 302(c)(4) of the Act,3
unless the checkoff provision is either unlawful on
its face or has been otherwise determined to be il-
legal in an unfair labor practice proceeding or in a
proceeding initiated by the Attorney General.
In the instant case, we find that the checkoff
provision was not unlawful under these standards,
and accordingly find that the contract is a bar to the
representation proceeding.
In view of our findings we shall dismiss the peti-
tion herein.
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the petition filed herein
be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
a criminal offense, prosecutable by the Department of Justice.
3 The checkoff provision in the Gary Steel contract was not conditioned
on any written assignment by each employee involved, as required by the
proviso to Section 302(c)(4).
169 NLRB No. 32