Independent Manufacturing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 24, 1955

113 N.L.R.B. 937 (N.L.R.B. 1955)

INDEPENDENT MANUFACTURING COMPANY 937
Robert E . Smith, Henry J. Smith , Nellie Quinn , Ann Smith, M. J.
Cain , E. M. McEvoy , M. E. Smith and M . M. Burns, , co-partners
d/b/a Independent Manufacturing Company and Local 195,
Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North
America, AFL, Petitioner . Case No. 4-RC-2691. August 24,
1955
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before Herbert B.
Mintz, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hear-
ing are free from prejudicial 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 National Labor Relations Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. The Intervenor, Local 13090, "District 50, United Mine Workers
of America,' urges as a bar to this proceeding the current union-shop
contract of its newly affiliated local. This contract, between the
Employer and Local 128, International Chemical Workers Emergency
Reorganizing Committee (ERC), was executed on February 4, 1955,
effective until February 8, 1956. On April 5, 1955, Local 128, ERC,
voted to affiliate with District 50, UMW, and, the group was assigned
local number 13090. Local 128, ERC, was in compliance with Section
9 (f), (g), and (h) of the Act at the time the union-security contract
was executed. However, the Intervenor has never been in compliance.
The Board has applied the provisions of Section 8 (a) (3), as
amended, to its contract-bar rules, and interpreted the statute as re-
quiring that in order for a union-shop contract to bar a'representation
proceeding the contracting union must have been in compliance with
Section 9 (f), (g), and (h) of the Act at the time the agreement was
made; or have received from the Board a notice of compliance within
the preceding 12 nionths.a
Consistent with this policy, we now find that a union which obtains
a union-shop contract by assignment through a newly affiliated local
must meet, at the time of affiliation, the same compliance requirements
as the contracting union is required to meet. To hold otherwise would
permit noncomplying unions to assume, through affiliation, union-shop
' At the close of the hearing the Petitioner and Employer made a motion that the inter-
vention be denied because of certain circumstances including Intervenor's failure to be
present during the last day of the hearing . This motion was referred to the Board and
is hereby denied.
' See, Ward Baking Company, 101 NLRB 419-420. See also Polk Brothers Central Ap-
pltance and Furniture Company, 105 NLRB 251, 252-253, Dichello , Inc., 107 NLRB 1642,
1643-1644, Hughes -Verttn Lime Company, 104 NLRB 185 ; Arvin Industries , Inc, 104
NLRB 300 , Kind and Knox Gelatin Company, 104 NLRB 1034, 1036.
113 NLRB No. 106.
938 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ,BOARD
contracts of complying unions and thereby obtain therefrom benefits
which the statute would not otherwise permit. Since the Intervenor
does not meet the requirements here established, we find that the union-
shop contract does not bar the petition herein.3
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) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The following employees of the Employer constitute a unit ap-
propriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning
of Section 9 (b) of the Act:
All employees at the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, plant of the Em-
ployer, excluding truckdrivers, office employees, plant guards, garage
mechanics, garage mechanic helpers, research technicians, and all
supervisors as defined in the Act 4
;[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
CHAIRMAN FARMER took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Direction of Election.
8In view of our disposition of the contract-bar issue, we find it unnecessary to pass
upon the merit of the various other contentions made by the parties with respect to that
issue.
' This unit is the historical bargaining unit and is in accord with the stipulation of the
parties.
Better Monkey Grip Company and Upholsterers ' International
Union of North America, AFL. Case No. 16-CA-742. August
,5,1955
DECISION AND ORDER REMANDING CASE TO
REGIONAL DIRECTOR
On August 27, 1954, the Trial Examiner 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 designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. There-
after, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and
a supporting brief. The Respondent also filed a motion to reopen
the record, to receive additional testimony. On December 31, 1954,
the Board issued an Order 1 granting the motion, remanding the case
to the Trial Examiner for further hearing, and directing that a
Supplemental Intermediate Report be prepared. Pursuant to this
Order, a further hearing was held before the same Trial Examiner;
and, on February 9, 1955, he issued his Supplemental Intermediate
1 Not reported in printed volumes of Board Decisions and Orders.
113-NLRB No. 110.