J. H. Rutter-Rex Manufacturing Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 7, 1950

90 N.L.R.B. 130 (N.L.R.B. 1950)

In the Matter of J. H . RUTTER-REX MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC.
and AMALGAMATED CLOTHING WORKERS OF AMERICA, C. I. O.
Cases Nos . 15-C-1216 and 15-CA-33
ORDER
June 7, 1950
On October 12, 1949, the Board issued its Decision and Order 1 in
this case , finding that the Respondent , in violation of Section 8 (a) (5)
and (1 ) of the Act , had refused to bargain with the Union , and direct-
ing that the Respondent , among other things, cease and desist from
refusing to bargain with the Union.
On May 22, 1950, the Board received from the Respondent a Motion
to Reopen , Reconsider and Dismiss the Complaint and Decision and
Order of the Board. The Respondent contends that the Board had
no jurisdiction to issue any complaint or decision in this case , because
at the time of the issuance of the complaint the Congress of Industrial
Organizations , the parent body of the Union herein , had not complied
with Section 9 (h) of the Act .2 The Respondent cites the recent de-
cision in the Postex Cotton Mills case,3 in which an order of the
Board directing the employer in that case to bargain with the Textile
Workers Union of America , C. I. 0., was denied enforcement by the
court solely because at the time the complaint was issued the Congress
.of Industrial Organizations was not in compliance with Section 9 (h),
The Court in the Postex case rejected the considerations on which the
Board had relied in Northern Virginia Broadcasters , Inc.4 There the
"Board found that noncompliance by the American Federation of
Labor with the filing requirements of Section 9 of the'amended Act
.did not bar the Board from investigating a representation question
' 88 NLRB 470.
R The amended complaint in this case issued on April 14, 1948. The Congress , of Industrial
. Organizations did not comply with Section 9 (h) of the Act until December 22, 1949.
3N, L. R. B. V. Postern Cotton Mills, Inc., 181 F . 2d 919 ( C. A. 5). Except for the
added contention in the motion relative to the continued majority status of the Union, the
Respondent ' s position is identical with that considered by the Board in Bethlehem Steel
..Company, Shipbuilding Division , and Bethlehem Sparrows Point Shipyard , Inc., 89 NLRB
341, and rejected for the same reasons set forth herein.
4 75 NLRB 11.
90 NLRB No. 15.
130
J. H. RUTTER-REX MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC. 131
raised by an international union affiliated with the American Federa-
tion of Labor, that affiliate having complied with the filing require-
ments of Section 9. In reaching that result, the Board concluded that
Congress did not intend that complying labor organizations affiliated
with parent federations, such as the American Federation of Labor and
,the Congress of Industrial Organizations, should be denied the proc-
esses of the Board because of the failure of such parent federations to
comply with Section 9 of the Act. With great respect for the opinion
of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, the Board is constrained
,to adhere to its original view until the Supreme Court of the United
.States has had an opportunity to pass on the question.
The Respondent also contends that because of excessive turnover
since the issuance of the Board's Order on October 12, 1949, the Union
no longer represents a majority of the employees in the appropriate
init. This contention is without merit.5
Accordingly, the Respondent's motion herein will be denied.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that the Respondent's Motion to Reopen, Reconsider
and Dismiss the Decision and Order and to Dismiss the Complaint in
this case be, and it hereby is, denied.
Dated, Washington, D. C., June 7,1950.
By direction of the Board:
FRANK M. KLEILER,
Executive Secretary.
N. L. R. B. v. Mexia Textile Mills , Inc., 339 U. S. 563; Franks Bros. Company v.
N. L. R. B., 3 .12 U, S. 702, 705-706.