Champion Blower & Forge Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 28, 1950

88 N.L.R.B. 868 (N.L.R.B. 1950)

In the Matter of CHAMPION BLOWER & FORGE COMPANY, EMPLOYER
and INTERNATIONAL UNION OF ELECTRICAL, RADIO & MACHINE
WORKERS, CIO, PETITIONER
Case No..-RC-602.-Decided February 28, f950
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION0
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before Ramey
Donovan, 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 National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the Board has delegated its powers in con-
nection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Ilerzog and
Members Houston and Reynolds].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the National Labor Relations Act.
2. The Petitioner, International Union of Electrical, Radio & Ma-
chine Workers, CIO, herein called the IUE, and the Intervenor,
United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America and its
Local 132,E herein jointly called the UE, are labor organizations claim-
ing to represent employees of the Employer.
3. The question concerning representation :
On April 22, 1949, the UE and the Employer executed a contract to
expire April 22, 1950. The UE contends that this contract is a bar
to a present determination of representatives.
The contract in question contains the following union-security pro-
vision:
Sec. 3. The Employer shall keep in his employ only members
of the Union in good standing. All newly hired employees shall
I In November 1949 the officers of Local 132, UE, withdrew from the UE and joined the
IUE. Thereafter, Local 132, UE, elected a new set of officers and advised the Employer of
such action. Local 132, UE, is not, and never has been, in compliance with the filing and
affidavit requirements of Section 9 of the Act.
88 NLRB No. 162.
868
0
CHAMPION BLOWER & FORGE COMPANY 869
join the union within three weeks from the date of their employ-
ment in accordance with the Constitution of the Union.
There has been no union-authorization election pursuant to Section
:9 (e) of the Act among the Employer's employees. The UE was
:.therefore not authorized to include a union-security clause in its con-
tract.-' Moreover, the clause in question exceeds the limited form
,of union-security permitted, under certain conditions, by the Act,
.and is thus illegal without regard to whether or not its execution was
.authorized by an election under Section 9 (e).3 The UE claims, how-
ever, that it had an oral understanding with the Employer that the
-union-security clause would become effective only if the Act were
,changed or a Board-conducted election held; and that, in any event, no
.action had been taken pursuant to this provision.5 We have held that
.an oral understanding such as this does not remove the infirmity so
.as to constitute the contract bar; and that is immaterial that no action
.in accordance with the union-security clause had in fact been taken.°
For the reasons stated, we find the contract is not a bar to a present
determination of representatives.
A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer, within the meaning of Section
:9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. In accordance with the agreement of the parties, we find that the
following employees of the Employer constitute a unit appropriate for
,purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9
.(b) of the Act:
All employees in the shop of the Employer, at Lancaster, Pennsyl-
,vania, including all production and maintenance employees, but ex-
cluding all clerical and office employees, superintendent, foremen, and
all other supervisors.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the
purposes of collective bargaining with the Employer, an election by
:secret ballot shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later than
-45 days from the date of this Direction, under the direction and super-
vision of the Regional Director for the Region in which this case was
'.heard, and subject to Sections 203.61 and 203.62 of National Labor
:Relations Board Rules and Regulations, among the employees in the
e C. Hager & Sons Hinge Manufacturing Company, 80 NLRB 163.
3 Louis Dix, an individual doing business as Hickey Cab Company, 88 NLRB 327.
' The oral understanding was based on a written stipulation executed in connection with
the 1947 contract between the parties, not the contract here in question.
" Bond Stores , Incorporated . 81 NLRB 1177.
5 Reading Hardware Corporation , 85 NLRB 610.
870 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
unit found appropriate in paragraph numbered 4, above, who were
employed during the payroll period immediately preceding the date
of this Direction of Election, including employees who did not work
during said payroll period because they were ill or on vacation or
temporarily laid off, but excluding those employees who have since
quit or been discharged for cause and have not been rehired or rein-
stated prior to the date of the election, and also excluding employees
on strike who are not entitled to reinstatement , to determine whether
they desire to be represented , for purposes of collective bargaining,
by International Union of Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers, CIO,
or by United Electrical , Radio and Machine Workers of America and
its Local 132 , or by neither.