Ford Motor Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 11, 1951

95 N.L.R.B. 127 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

FORD MOTOR COMPANY 127
has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning
of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication in this volume.]
FORD MOTOR COMPANY (CANTON FORGE DIVISION and INTERNATIONAL
BROTHER HOOD OF BLACKSM ITHS , DROP FORGERS AND HELPERS, AFL,
PETITIONER. Case No. 8-RC-935. July 11, 1951
Decision
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held in this case at Canton,
Ohio, before John H. Garver, hearing officer. The hearing officer's,
rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are!
hereby affirmed. All parties have filed briefs with the Board, and the
Petitioner has requested oral argument.
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 and the Intervenor, International Union, United
Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of
America, UAW-CIO, are labor organizations claiming to represent
employees of the Employer.
3. The question concerning representation :
The Petitioner filed its petition herein on June 20, 1950, seeking
to represent all employees in the Employer's Canton, Ohio, forging
plant. The Employer and the Intervenor, in addition to contending
that the unit sought is not appropriate, maintain that their collective
bargaining contract of September 28, 1949, is a bar to this proceeding.
The Petitioner contends that this contract is no bar, and urges in
support of this contention several grounds, one of which is that the
contract contains an unauthorized and unlawful union-security pro-
vision. The Petitioner argues that the Congress of Industrial Organ-
izations , the parent federation of the Intervenor, was not in com-
pliance with the filing requirements of the Act at the time of the
union authorization election, and that therefore the union-security
clause in the contract was never properly authorized.
Since 1941, the Employer and the Intervenor have entered into a
series of collective bargaining agreements covering all plants operat-
ed by the Employer. In 1948 the Employer started operations in the
Canton plant. Purusant to a Board-directed election,' the Inter-
i Ford Motor Company, Canton Forge Plant, 80 NLRB 1094.
95 NLRB No. 27.
128 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
venor was certified as the bargaining representative of the Canton
employees on April 6, 1949, and this plant was included in the next
master contract consummated by the Employer and the Intervenor on
September 28, 1949.
In 1948, following a company-wide election under Section 9 (e)
of the Act, the Board certified the Intervenor as authorized to execute
a union-security agreement, and such provision was made in the 1949
contract. However, as the Canton employees were not represented
by the Intervenor at the time of the Section 9 (e) election, the Inter-
venor filed a separate 9 (e) petition for the Canton employees and was
certified by the Board, following an election, on November 3, 1949.
The union-security provisions of the September 28,1949, contract were
immediately made applicable to the Canton plant.
Although the Intervenor was in compliance with the filing require-
ments of Section 9 (f), (g), and (h) of the Act at the time it filed its
representation and union-authorization petitions for the Canton em-
ployees, the CIO was not in compliance on either occasion and in
fact did not comply until December 22, 1949. Under its interpreta-
tion of the Act's provisions,2 the Board did not then require com-
pliance by the parent federations of international unions. On May
14, 1951, however, in the Highland Park case,3 the Supreme Court of
the United States decided that the Board had erred in its interpreta-
tion of the filing provisions of the Act and that Section 9 (h) of the Act
required compliance by the parent federations of affiliated unions. As
the CIO was not in compliance at any time during the pendency of the
9 '(e) proceedings at the Canton plant, we are constrained to hold that
the Intervenor was not lawfully authorized to enter into a union-
security agreement for the Canton employees. It follows that, al-
though the good faith of the parties cannot be questioned, the union-
security provisions of the September 28, 1949, contract, as applied to
the Canton plant after November 3, 1949, were improperly included
in the contract. Under well-settled Board doctrine, a contract
containing an invalid union-security clause cannot operate as a bar
to a current determination of representatives 4 We must conclude,
therefore, that the September 28, 1949, contract is now no bar to the
pending petition.
A 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.
4. In view of the general importance of the contract bar issue con
-sidered above, the Board has proceeded to an immediate determination
of that question before final disposition of the petition. With respect
Northern Virginia Broadcasters, Inc., 75 NLRB 11 ( 1947).
N. L. R . B. V. Highland Park Manufacturing Company, 71 S. Ct. 758.
4 C. Hager & Sons Hinge Manufacturing Company. 80 NLRB 163.
MINIMAX STORES 129
to the unit sought by the Petitioner, the appropriateness of which is
contested by the Employer and the Intervenor, the Board believes that
oral argument is desirable. The parties will be given due notice of
the argument date.
MINIMAx STORES.' and RETAIL CLERKS INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION,
AFL. Case No. 39-CA-43. July 12, 1951
Supplemental Decision and Order . .
On November 30, 1950, Trial Examiner Albert P. Wheatley issued
his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding finding that
the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair
labor practices, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative. action, as set forth in the copy of the
Intermediate Report attached hereto. The Trial Examiner also found
that the Respondent had not engaged in certain other unf air labor
practices alleged in the complaint and recommended dismissal of
those allegations. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the
Intermediate Report and a supporting brief.
. The Board' has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in
this case and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner with the following modifications:
1. We find, as did the Trial Examiner, that Whitehead was dis-
criminatorily discharged on February 7, 1949, in violation of Section
8 (a) (3) of the Act. We do not, however, agree with the Trial Ex-
aminer that McCreight's statement to Whitehead with regard to re-
employment was insufficient to deny reinstatement to Whitehead and
toll back pay,.:
The record' established that McCreight asked Whitehead whether
"he would like to come back out there," and when Whitehead answered
that he "didn't know" and "would think it over," McCreight added
"you keep in touch with me." Realistically viewed, McCreight's state-
ment to Whitehead was not an idle inquiry but a clear invitation to
return to work. That the invitation did not crystallize into a more
firm offer of employment was due to Whitehead's indefinite response.
As a more positive overture would have been futile in the circum-
'The pleadings were amended at'the hearing to show the name of the Respondent as
it appears herein.
1 Pursuant to provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the
Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three -member panel
( Chairman Herzog and Members Reynolds and Murdock].
'• 95 NLRB No. 10.