Bath Iron Works Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 8, 1952

101 N.L.R.B. 849 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

BATH IRON WORKS CORPORATION 849
BATH IRON WORKS CORPORATION and INDUSTRIAL UNION OF MARINE &
SHIPBUILDING WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO. PETITIONER. Case No.
1-RC-2910. December 8, 1952
Decision and Order
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Sidney A. Coven,
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 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 Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. The Employer and the International Brotherhood of Boiler-
makers, Iron Ship Builders & Helpers of America, AFL, and its Local
168, herein together called the Intervenor, contend that their current
contract constitutes a bar to this proceeding. The Petitioner opposes
this contention, asserting among other grounds, that the contract con-
tains an illegal union-security clause.
The Employer had successive collective bargaining agreements with
an independent union for a number of years up to September 1950.
After an election conducted by the Board, the Intervenor was certi-
fied on August 11, 1950, as bargaining agent of the employees. Its
first contract was an interim agreement which merely continued in
effect the Employer's last contract with the independent union. On
October 6, 1950, the parties executed a regular contract effective as
of September 25, 1950, and to expire on September 25, 1951. A
union-security authorization election was held on October 10, 1950,
and the appropriate certification issued by the Board 8 days later.
Finally, on March 20, 1951, the parties amended their contract with
respect to certain provisions and extended its terms for an additional
2 years until September 25, 1953.
The contract now in effect contains a union-security clause sub-
stantially similar to those contained in the earlier bargaining agree-
ments with the independent union. It reads as follows:
BIW agrees that it will not retain as employees any persons,
other than those excepted above in Article I, unless they be or
101 NLRB No. 150.
850 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
become members of the Union thirty (30) days after hiring or
completing their probationary period.
This provision could be interpreted to mean that employees who
had been hired before the date of the contract were subject to dis-
charge forthwith for nonmembership in the Union. However, we do
not believe that the wording of the provision makes such interpreta-
tion logically imperative, for it could as well be argued that the time
limitations of the clause are applicable to new employees only.
Because the union-security clause is ambiguous, we shall examine the
circumstances under which the provision in its present form was
adopted, as well as the practice under it, so as to determine its
meaning.,'
As mentioned above, the prior agreements of the Employer with
the Independent Union contained a substantially identical union-
security clause. The record shows that the Intervenor withdrew an
earlier petition filed in the spring of 1950, apparently on the advice
of the Board field examiner that the contract then in existence was
a bar to the petition. Before the present contract was executed, it
was read to a membership meeting of the Intervenor which was
attended by about 400 out of the approximately 900 employees in the
plant. When explaining the union-security clause, Young, the In-
tervenor's international representative, specifically stated that all
employees would have 30 days after a union shop authorization elec-
tion (to be held at a later date) in which to join the Union. The
agreement was thereupon ratified by the employees present. The evi-
dence then discloses that 2 days after the certification of the Inter-
venor under Section 9 (e) of the Act, it posted a notice on the bulletin
boards advising all employees that those then employed would have
to join 30 days after the certification date, October 18, 1950, and that
new employees must join 30 days after employment. In December
1950 the Intervenor posted a second notice calling on the employees
to join before December 31, 1950, so as to take advantage of a special
dispensation concerning the amount of dues. Not until February
1951 were the checkoff provisions of the contract put into effect. No
attempt was made to enforce the union-security provisions until late
in the summer of 1951.
On these facts, and on the record as a whole, we conclude that the
current contract, reasonably construed in the light of surrounding
circumstances, did not deprive those employees who were not mem-
bers of the Intervenor on the day when the contract was made, of
the 30-day grace period required by Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
Therefore, contrary to the Petitioner's contention, the union-security
provision is not unlawful.
3 Compare Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corporation , 98 NLRB 753.
TOLEDO SCALE COMPANY 851
The Petitioner also contends that because the contract was extended
in March 1951, 5 months after its original date, it has been prema-
turely extended and therefore cannot constitute a bar. Under well
established Board precedent, any contract made during the certifica-
tion year precludes a new investigation of representatives during its
regular term.2
The Petitioner further asserts that the contract contains unlawful
checkoff provisions and therefore cannot bar an election. In ac-
cordance with Board policy, we find that considerations as to the
legality of the checkoff provisions under Section 302 of the Act are
irrelevant and immaterial on a contract bar issue 3 Nor do we find
merit in the Petitioner's contention that, because the contract was
revised during its term, it cannot operate as a bar. The Board has
held that parties to a contract may renegotiate or modify it during
its term without "opening up" such contract to an otherwise prema-
turely filed petition 4 Accordingly, we find that the current contract
is valid and constitutes a bar to a present determination of represent-
atives, and we shall dismiss the petition.
Because the record does not establish that collective-bargaining
agreements exceeding 2 years' duration are customary in this in-
dustry, we agree with the Petitioner that the contract will cease to
be a bar 2 years after its execution in March 1951.6
Order
IT I8 HEREBY ORDERED that the petition filed herein be, and it hereby
is, dismissed.
2 Quaker Maid Co, Inc., 71 NLRB 915
Croton Products Co., 99 NLRB 602
Western Electric Co , 94 NLRB 54.
Intonational Brick Co., 91 NLRB 1428
TOLEDO SCALE COUP ANY and LOCAL 4, MECHANICS EDUCATIONAL SO-
CIETY or AaMERICA,l PETITIONER. Case No. 8-RC-1747. December
8,1952
Decision and Direction of Election
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Carroll L. Martin, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
' The name of the Petitioner appears as corrected at the hearing.
101 NLRB No. 15.5
242305-53-55