Clayton & Lambert Manufacturing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 20, 1960

128 N.L.R.B. 209 (N.L.R.B. 1960)

CLAYTON & LAMBERT PMIANUFACTURINC COMPANY 209
Clayton & Lambert Manufacturing Company and United Steel-
workers of America, AFL-CIO, Petitioner . Case No. 9-RC-
3941. July 20, 1960
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Mark Fox, hearing officer.
The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from preju-
dicial 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 labor organizations involved claim to represent employees
of the Employer.'
3. No 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, for the following
reasons:
The Intervenor asserts that its current 2-year contract with the
Employer, effective until March 30, 1961, is a bar to the petition which
was filed on February 1, 1960. The Petitioner asserts that its petition
is timely and that the contract is not a bar as it was executed at a time
when the Intervenor was not in compliance with former Section 9(f),
(g), and (h) of the Act. The Petitioner also contends that the con-
tract is not a bar because a schism has occurred in the Intervenor. The
Employer, while not asserting that the contract is a bar, stated at the
hearing that it and the Intervenor have observed the terms of the con-
tract since the effective date, and that the Employer currently recog-
nizes the Intervenor as the bargaining representative of its employees.
On September 17, 1957, the Intervenor was certified by the Board
as representative of the production and maintenance employees at the
Employer's Buckner, Kentucky, plant, which is the plant involved
herein. On February 28, 1958, the Intervenor allowed its compliance
with former Section 9(f), (g), and (h) of the Act to lapse and there-
after remained out of compliance. On February 28, 1959, the Inter-
venor and the Employer executed a contract, containing a union-
security clause, effective until March 30, 1961, covering the Employer's
employees in the certified unit, which are the same employees now
sought to be represented by the Petitioner. The Petitioner contends
that, in accord with the rule in the Keystone case,' the contract is not
a bar to it present determination of representatives, as the Intervenor
1Oldham County Local Union No 1, herein called the Intervenor, intervened on the
basis of a contract interest
Keystone Coat, Ap>on f Towel Supply Company, et al, 121 NLRB 880, 880.
128 NLRB No. 16.
210 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
had not at the time the contract was made or during the preceding 12
months received from the Board a notice of compliance with Section
9(f), (g), and (h), as required by clause (i) of Section 8(a) (3) of the
Act before its recent amendment.
When the Board issued its decision in Keystone, Section 9(f), (g),
and (h) of the Act, now repealed, was then in effect. The Board,
in reevaluating its contract-bar rules, therein stated :
Finally, the Board has decided to modify its existing rules re-
lating to the effect of a contracting union's compliance or non-
compliance with Section 9(f), (g) and (h) of the Act upon con-
tracts containing union-security provisions which are otherwise
valid for bar purposes. The new rules provide that a contract
containing an otherwise valid union-security clause does not bar
an election if :
2. The local union or its affiliated parent are not in compliance
with the filing requirements of the Act.... [Emphasis supplied.]
However, thereafter, Congress, in Section 201(d) and (e) of the
Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, repealed
Section 9(f), (g), and (h) and amended clause (i) of Section 8(a) (3)
to strike therefrom the compliance requirement referred to above.
These changes in the law became effective on September 14, 1959. As
a result of these changes, any union-security contract, otherwise valid,
entered into after the effective date of the amendments clearly no
longer depends on compliance of the contracting union for its validity.
Although the contract here was executed before the effective date of
the amendments, no useful purpose will be served by holding that
noncompliance before the amendments renders ineffective for bar
purposes a contract which would otherwise be a bar to a petition filed
after the repeal of the compliance requirements.3
There remains for consideration the Petitioner's contention that
a schism exists in the Intervenor. We find no merit in this contention.
At the hearing, the Petitioner introduced testimony to show that, on
January 18, 1960, a duly constituted meeting of the Intervenor was
held for the purpose of disaffiliating from the Intervenor and affili-
ating with the Petitioner. Although such disaffiliation action was
taken, thereafter new officers were appointed to offices in the Inter-
venor, meetings of the Intervenor have been held, and the Intervenor
has continued to administer the terms of the existing contract. More-
over, the record does not show that there exists in the Intervenor's
international union a basic intraunion conflict over policy resulting
3 We are not in this case passing on any possible effect in unfair labor proceedings of
noncompliance by the contracting Union at the time the contract is executed.
YOSEPH BAG COMPANY 211
in a disruption of existing intraunion relationships.` Under the cir-
cumstances, we find that a schism does not exist.
On the basis of the foregoing, we find that the petition is prema-
turely filed and that the contract between the Intervenor and the
Employer is a bar to the petition.' Accordingly, we shall dismiss the
petition.
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
MEMBER RODGERS took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Order.
'Hershey Chocolate Corporation , 121 NLRB 901 , 906-909
5 Deluxe Metal Furn,ture Company, 121 NLRB 995, 999.
Morris and David Yoseph , d/b/a M. Yoseph Bag Company and
District 65, Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union,
AFL-CIO. Case No. 4-CA-1593. July 21, 1960
DECISION AND ORDER
On May 2, 1958, Trial Examiner Henry S. Salon issued his Inter-
mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding finding that the Re-
spondent had not engaged in certain unfair labor practices alleged
in the complaint and that incidents adduced in support of certain
allegations were too isolated to warrant a remedial order, and recom-
mending that the complaint be dismissed in its entirety as set forth
in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter,
the Charging Party and the General Counsel filed exceptions to the
Intermediate Report and supporting briefs. On June 16, 1959, the
Board issued its Order remanding this proceeding to the Regional
Director. The parties waived their rights to a further hearing and
Supplemental Intermediate Report and entered into a stipulation
of fact.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was commited. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, the stipulation of facts,
and the entire record in this case and finds merit in the exceptions to
the Intermediate Report for the reasons discussed below. Accord-
ingly, the Board adopts only those findings, conclusions, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner which are consistent with the
Decision herein.
The record facts, some of which were not alluded to by the Trial
Examiner in his Intermediate Report, are as follows: The Respond-
ent, a New Jersey partnership, was engaged in purchasing feed bags
128 NLRB No. 21.