American Yearbook Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 11, 1952

98 N.L.R.B. 49 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

JOSTEN ENGRAVING COMPANY 49
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner restrain or coerce employees of
ALASKA STEAMSHIP COMPANY., its successors or assigns , in the exercise
of their rights to engage in, or to refrain from engaging in, any or all of the
concerted activities guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act,
WE WILL, make whole Horace W. Underwood for any loss of pay suffered
as a result of our unlawful discrimination against him.
AMERICAN RADIO ASSOCIATION, CIO,
Labor Organization.
Dated ---------------------------- By ---------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof , and must not
be altered , defaced, or covered by any other material.
JOSTEN ENGRAVING COMPANY, D/B/A AMERICAN YEARBOOK COMPANY
and AMALGAMATED LITHOGRAPHERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL UNION No. 10
(CIO), PETITIONER. Case No. 18-RC-1075. February 11, 1952
Decision and Order
Upon ,j petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Erwin A. Peterson, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from
prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The Petitioner and the Intervenor, International Jewelry Work-
ers Union, Local No. 17, AFL, are labor organizations claiming to
represent certain employees of the Employer.
3. The Employer and the Intervenor assert that their current 1950
contract constitutes a bar to this proceeding. The Petitioner contends
that the contract is not a bar, on the grounds: (a) That it does not
cover the employees herein sought; and (b) that it contains an illegal
union-security clause.
Applicability of the Contract to American Yearbook Employees
Petitioner seeks to represent a group of lithograph employees who
work in the American Yearbook division of the Employer.' The
Petitioner contends that the current contract does not cover any
employees in this division, because the name of this division is not
' The American Yearbook division of American Yearbook Company, a new project of the
Josten Engraving Company, was established in the spring of 1950, some 6 months prior to
the current contract, executed in August 1950 This division is engaged in the production
of high school and college yearbooks , and it draws upon the same market for the sale of
its products as its patent company. the Josten Manufacturing Company, -.vhich manu-
factures high school and college jewelry.
98 NLRB No. 3.
50 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
specifically set forth in the contract and because no wage rates per-
taining to job classifications in the division are incorporated in the
contract.
Article 1 Section 5 of the current contract provides that the Inter-
venor shall be the sole and exclusive bargaining agent for the employees-
in the printing and engraving business conducted by the Josten-
Engraving Company, in addition to the employees of the jewelry busi-
ness conducted by the Josten Manufacturing Company. It is also,
clear that the Intervenor has represented the Yearbook division
employees in the processing of grievances, that these employees have
been members of the Intervenor's policy-making committee, and that
they have received all the benefits of the contract in the same manner
as the other employees. Furthermore, the Petitioner concedes that at
least one provision of the contract, a provision relating to part-time
employees, was adopted with specific reference to the employees of the
Yearbook division where, alone, the part-time workers were involved.
On the question of wage rates, the evidence shows that the evaluation
of the job classifications in this new division was then in progress, and
that pending such evaluation it was customary to consider the new
jobs as falling into established labor grades, for which wage rates were
negotiated.
On the basis of the above facts, we find that the contentions of the
Petitioner are without merit. Accordingly, we find that the current
contract covers the employees of the Yearbook division.
Legality of the Union-Security Provision
In 1946 the Intervenor was certified by the State of Minnesota,
Division of Conciliation, as the exclusive bargaining representative
for all employees of the parent and subsidiary companies. The first
contract, which was signed on May 9, 1946, contained a union-shop
clause, requiring all employees to become and remain members of the
union after completion of the probationary 12-month period of em-
ployment. This provision also appeared in the contract executed
June 26, 1947. On August 3, 1948, after union-shop authorization
had been secured in accordance with the amended Act, a new contract
was executed. This contract contained the following union-security
provision :
Section 2 (2)
All employees who have completed the probationary period
established by Section 11 of Article V of this Agreement 2 shall
make application to and become members of the Union, and shall
thereafter maintain their membership in good standing in accord-
s As in the previous contracts , this period was 1 year.
JOSTEN ENGRAVING, COMPANY + 511
ance with the Union's Constitution and By-laws, as a condition
of employment.
During the first ninety (90) days of the probationary period
provided for in Article V, Section 11 of this agreement proba-
tionary employees shall not be eligible for membership in the
Union. Neither the Union nor any member shall solicit any
membership or application therefor or any money from any pro-
bationary employee during the first ninety (90) days of this
probationary period. During the probationary period the Union
agrees that it will in no way require, attempt to require, or bring
pressure upon any probationary employee to join or become a
Union member or to obtain permission or approval to work for
the Union or its members.
The applicability and enforcement of the foregoing provision
of this agreement as to required membership in the Union shall be
effective only in accordance with the Labor Management Relations.
Act of 1947.
In 1949, and again on August 4, 1950, the parties extended the 1948
contract including the above union-security clause, except that in each
case the last clause, quoted above, was omitted.
The Petitioner contends that this union-security clause as incor-
porated in the 1950 agreement did not give employees who had not
become union members on August 4, 1950, the 30-day grace period
required by Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. In other words, it argues
that although probationary employees had worked for 1 year without
the necessity of becoming union members, they must nevertheless be
granted the additional 30 days following the effective date of the
contract. The Employer and Intervenor urge that the union-security
clause is valid on the following grounds : (1) The 1948 contract, the
first following the union-shop authorization, accorded old employees
the required grace period by virtue of the last clause of the union-
security provision and satisfied the requirement as to new employees
by giving them 12 months before they were required to become mem-
bers of the union; (2) the 1949 and 1950 agreements provided the
same exemption for new employees; (3) in any case the Act requires
only one grace period for old employees and does not require additional
grace periods every time a contract is renewed or extended.
In the recent Krause case 3 we held that, under a union-shop clause,
a grace period need not be accorded to old employees who already
were members of the union on the effective date of the contract. That
principle, when applied to the instant case, establishes the legality of
the union-security provision as to those employees who were members
of the Union on August 4, 1950, the effective date of the current con-
8 Charles A Krause Milling Co, 97 NLRB 536.
52 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tract. There remains the question whether employees hired between
August 4 and September 4, 1949, and who were therefore not required
to become and were not union members until the corresponding period
in 1950, were nevertheless entitled to an additional 30 days after
August 4, 1950.
We do not believe that Section 8 (a) (3) requires such additional
grace period to old employees under the facts of this case. The cur-
rent contract was a renewal of the 1949 and 1948 contracts, the latter
being the first agreement following the union-shop authorization.
Under the 1948 contract all new employees were required to become
members only after 12 months of employment. All old employees
were allowed their required grace period, by virtue of the clause pro-
viding that the requirement as to union membership should be effective
only in accordance with the Labor Management Relations Act. The
1949 contract renewed the union-security requirement of the 1948 con-
tract, except that the deferring clause therein was omitted. The cur-
rent contract of 1950 4 is a renewal of the 1949 contract. The only
employees covered by the present contract who possibly were not union
members on August 4, 1950, the date of execution, and were obligated
to join the Union in less than 30 days from August 4, were those who
had been hired a year before, between August and September 4, 1949.
But such employees had already been afforded much more than 30 days
before coming under the contractual obligation to join the Union.
A reasonable construction of the statute seems to us to lead to the
conclusion that, under the present circumstances, the grace period
requirements have been met. To hold otherwise would afford the
employees 12 months' representation for 11 months' dues, and would
thus permit "free riders," the avoidance of which was clearly in-
tended by the statute.5 Accordingly, without deciding what the law
would require in a different situation and confining the Board's de-
cision to the present circumstances, we find that the current contract
between the Employer and the Intervenor constitutes a bar to the
present determination of representatives. We shall therefore dismiss
the petition e
Order
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
MEMBER HOUSTON took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Order.
' The 1950 contract expires July 1, 1953.
a Charles A. Krause Milling Co , supra.
e The Employer and the Intervenor, in addition to their contentions that the current
contract is a bar , claim that the unit sought is inappropriate . Because of our holding
herein that the contract constitutes a bar , we find it unnecessary to consider the unit issue.