Chesler Glass Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 28, 1950

92 N.L.R.B. 1016 (N.L.R.B. 1950)

In the Matter of NATHAN CHESLER , ABRAHAM CHESLER , BERTRAM
CHESLER , AND SAMUEL KALM , CO-PARTNERS , D/B/A CHESLER GLASS
Co., EMPLOYER and DISTRICT 65, AFFILIATED wrrH THE DISTRIBUTIVE,
PROCESSING AND OFFICE WORKERS OF AMERICA, INDEPENDENT,1
PETITIONER
Case No. 2-RC-2622.-Decided December 28,1950
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 Jack Davis, hearing
• officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.2
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 Styles].
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
employees of the Employer.
3. The.question concerning representation:
The Employer and the Intervenor contend that a contract entered
into between them on January 2, 1950, to expire on December 31,
1951, is a bar to the present proceeding. The Petitioner contends
that the contract is not a bar because it contains an unlawful union-
security provision. The provision in question reads as follows :
1. The Employer may inform the Union of its intention to
hire any new employees. The Employer shall have the right to
1 The name of the Petitioner appears as amended at the hearing, and that of the
Employer as corrected prior to the hearing.
2 The Intervenor , Local 35, International Jewelry Workers Union, AFL, moved to dismiss
the petition on the ground that the Board lacked jurisdiction because the officers of the
Petitioner had filed false non-Communist affidavits and had , therefore , failed to comply
with the filing requirements of Section 9 (h) of the Act . This motion was referred to the
Board and is hereby denied without passing on the merits of the contention. The Board
has consistently held that it will not investigate the authenticity or truth of affidavits
filed under Section 9 , as such investigations are by the Act made a function of the Depart-
ment of Justice . General Baking Company, 90 NLRB 588 ; Wilson and Co ., Inc., 80 NLRB
1486.
92 NLRB No. 157.
1016
CHESLER GLASS Co. 1017
hire employees through any channels. Any such new employee
who continues to be employed by the Employer for four (4)
.weeks shall thereupon be required to join the Union and shall
be considered a regular employee. During such four (4) week
trial period such new employee may be discharged by the Em-
ployer without cause. The same right to discharge during the
four (4) week trial period shall apply in the case of new em-
ployees furnished by the Union.
In our opinion this union-security provision exceeds that which
the Act permits, even if no action has been taken pursuant to it, and,
therefore, prevents the present contract from serving as a bar.a
Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act permits an employer and a labor organi-
zation, under certain conditions to make an agreement "to require
as a condition of employment membership [in the labor organization]
on or after the thirtieth day following the beginning of such em-
ployment or the effective date of such agreement whichever is later."
(Emphasis supplied.) The Intervenor has been certified as being
authorized to make such an agreement with the Employer. However,
the third sentence of the union-security provision of the contract was
clearly intended to require membership in the Intervenor as a condi-
tion of continued employment on or after the 29th day following the
beginning of employment. In this respect the provision goes beyond
the limited form of union-security agreement permitted by Section
8 (a) (3) of the Act.4 We have no authority, as the Employer would
have us do, to construe the 30-day provision of the Statute other than
literally. For this reason, we find that the contract is not a bar to
this proceeding.
Accordingly, we find that a question affecting commerce exists con-
cerning the representation of employees of the Employer within the
meaning of Section 9. (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The appropriate unit :
We find, substantially in accord with the stipulation of the parties,
that all employees of the Employer at its Brooklyn, New York, plant,
excluding salesmen, office and professional employees, guards, watch-
men, foremen, assistant foremen, and all. supervisors as defined in
the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purpose of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
[Text. of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
3 C. Hager & Sons Hinge Manufacturing Company, 80 NLRB 163.
4 Cf. Sheperd Manufacturing Company, Inc., 90 NLRB 2196; The National Foundry
cE Furnace Company, 88 NLRB 1083; Aeroil Products Company, Inc., 86 NLRB 639;
Champion Blower & Forge Company, 88 NLRB 868; Acme Mattress Company, Inc., 91
NLRB 1010.
929979-51-vol. 92-66