Klasson Knitwear Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 15, 1953

106 N.L.R.B. 178 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

178 DECISIONS OF-NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
SIDNEY J. RUBIN t/a KLASSON KNITWEAR COMPANY' and
EVELYN KERSHNER, Petitioner and INTERNATIONAL
LADIES GARMENT WORKERS UNION, LOCAL 111, AFL.
Case No. 4-RD-90. July 15, 1953 ,
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Bernard
Samoff, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made
at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby
affirmed.t
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 [Members Houston, Murdock, and
Peterson].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the mean-
ing of the Act.
2. The Petitioner, an employee of the Employer, asserts
that the Union is no longer a representative, as defined in
Section 9 (a) of the Act, of the employees designated in the
petition. .
3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the
representation of employees of the Employer within the
meaning of Section 8 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act,
for the following reasons:
On February 28, 1953, the Union and the Employer executed
a 3-year collective-bargaining contract, which contains a
union-security clause. The Union contends that the contract
is a bar to the proceeding. The Employer takes no position
with respect to the contract-bar issue. The Petitioner makes
no specific allegations as to the legality of the substantive
provisions of the contract, but contends that an election should
be directed because the employees did not ratify the contract.
There is no evidence to indicate that employee ratification is
a requirement for effective execution of the contract. In these
circumstances, we assume, in accord with established Board
policy, that all essential requirements were met to render
the contract binding upon the parties.3 We, therefore, find no
merit in the Petitioner's contention.
At the hearing, the hearing officer raised the question as to
the application of the union-security clause and therefore
permitted testimony to explain its application. The union-
security clause reads as follows:
i The Employer's name appears as amended at the hearing.
2 The hearing officer referred to the Board three motions of the Union to dismiss the
proceeding. As we are dismissing the petition for reasons set forth in paragraph numbered
3. infra, we find it unnecessary to rule on these motions.
3Avco Manufacturing Corporation, 97 NLRB 645
106 NLRB No 22.
DESILU PRODUCTIONS, INC. 179
ARTICLE III: UNION MEMBERSHIP
Upon compliance with the requirements of Section 8 (a)
(3) (i) of the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, as
amended, or upon a change in the law eliminating such
requirements , good standing membership in the Union
shall be a condition of employment for all employees* on
and after the thirtieth day following the beginning of such
employment but not before completion of the worker's
trial period . (* who are included in the bargaining unit).
This provision could be interpreted to mean that employees
who had been hired before the date of the contract were subject
to discharge forthwith for nonmembership in the Union. How-
ever, we do not believe that the wording of the provision makes
such interpretation logically imperative , for it could as well
be argued that the time limitation of the clause is applicable
to new employees only. Because we, like the hearing officer,
believe the union-security clause is ambiguous , we shall
examine the testimony of the parties so as to determine the
meaning of the clause , as well as the practice under it.4
The union representative who negotiated the contract testified
that the union - security clause was not intended to apply to
employees employed before the date of the contract. The
Employer testified that he was under the impression that such
employees were permitted 30 days in which to join the Union.
In any event, no attempt has been made to enforce the union-
security clause. On these facts , we conclude that the contract
did not deprive employees employed before the contract date of
the 30 -day grace period required by Section 8 (a) (3) of the
Act. We, therefore , find that the union - security clause is not
unlawful.
In view of the foregoing and upon the entire record in this
case, we find that the contract is a bar to an election at this
time. We shall , therefore , dismiss the petition.
[The Board dismissed the petition.
4Bath Iron Works Corporation, 101 NLRB 181.
DESILU PRODUCTIONS, INC.' and TELEVISION WRITERS OF
AMERICA, Petitioner, Case No. 21-RC-2847. July 15, 1953
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon consolidated petitions' duly filed under Section 9 (c) of
the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held com-
1 Name appears as amended at the hearing.
2 This case was consolidated at the first hearing with Cases Nos. 21-RC-2782, 21-RC-2791,
21-RC-2872, and 21-RC-2849 reported as National Broadcasting Company, Inc., et al.,
104 NLRB 587.
106 NLRB No. 26.
322615 0 - 54 - 13