Arvin Industries, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 22, 1953

104 N.L.R.B. 300 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

300 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
All production employees , including the shipping room and truckdrivers , but excluding
office and clerical employees , maintenance employees , professional employees , guards,
watchmen , and all supervisors as defined in the Act.
All our employees are free to become or remain members of the above -named union or any
other labor organization.
SQUIRRELL BRAND CO., INC.,
Employer.
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 '
ARVIN INDUSTRIES, INC. and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION
OF MACHINISTS, AFL, Petitioner. Case No. 35-RC-863.
April 22, 1953
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before John W. Hines,
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 Act, the
Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case
to a three-member panel (Chairman Herzog and Members
Murdock and Peterson].
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 labor organizations involved claim to represent
employees of the Employer.
3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the
representation 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 seeks a unit of production and maintenance
employees at the Employer's operations in Franklin, Indiana.
The Employer and Franklin Industrial Workers Union, the
Intervenor herein, contend that their current contract operates
as a bar to the instant petition. The Petitioner alleges that
the contract is not a bar (1) because its petition was filed
timely and (2) because the contract contains an unlawful
union-security clause.
Since 1945, after Board certification of the Intervenor, the
Employer}, and the Intervenor have negotiated a series of
bargaining contracts. In February 1950, the parties entered
Into a contract with an expiration date of February 28, 1953,
i Before July 1950 the Employer operated under the name of Noblitt Sparks Industries, Inc.
104 NLRB No. 42.
ARVIN INDUSTRIES, INC. 301
which provided that it should be automatically renewed for an
additional year, unless either party gave proper notice at
least 60 days before its expiration date. On December 29,
1952, prior to the automatic renewal date, the Intervenor
gave notice to the Employer of its desire to negotiate a new
contract. On December 31, 1952, the parties executed a new
agreement to become effective February 28, 1953. The petition
herein was filed on February 11, 1953. In these circumstances,
it is clear, and we find, that the petition was not timely filed
as the contract was executed prior to the filing thereof.!
We find no merit in the Petitioner's further contention that
the contract does not constitute a bar because it contains the
following clause:
All employees who, upon the effective date of this
Agreement are members of the Union in good standing in
accordance with the Constitution and By-Laws of the
Union, and those employees who may thereafter become
members shall, as a condition of employment, maintain
their membership in the Union by the tender of periodic
dues and the initiation fees uniformly required by the
Union as a condition of acquiring or retaining membership
therein....
As the contract does not require any employee to become a
member of the Intervenor, the above "maintenance of member-
ship" clause is not illegal.9 Nor do we agree with the Peti-
tioner's contention that the above provision is unlawful because
the Intervenor was not in compliance with the filing require-
ments of Section 9 of the Act at the time the contract was
executed. It is sufficient, as the record shows, that the
Intervenor was in compliance with the above section of the
Act before February 28, 1953, the effective date of the
contract. 4
Upon the entire record, we find that the contract between the
Employer and the Intervenor constitutes a bar to this pro-
ceeding. Accordingly, we shall dismiss the petition.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition filed herein be,
and it hereby is, dismissed.
!See DeSoto Creamery and Produce Company, 94 NLRB 1627; Robertson Brothers Depart-
ment Store , Inc.. 97 NLRB 258.
3 West Steel Casting Company , 98 NLRB 153.
4Hughes-Vertin Lime Co ., 104 NLRB No. 20.