Muntz Television, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 9, 1950

92 N.L.R.B. 29 (N.L.R.B. 1950)

In the Matter of MtNTZ TELEVISION, INC., EMPLOYER, aind UNITED
ELECTRICAL, RADIO AND MACHINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, UE,.
PETITIONER
a
Case No. 21-RC-14.25.-Decided November 9, 1950
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before Ben Grodsky,.
hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing
are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.'
Pursuant to the 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
Houston and Reynolds].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds:
1. The Employer, a Delaware corporation, is engaged in the sale
and service of television and radio sets at its plants located in Holly-
wood and Long Beach, California. The Employer's main office is in
Chicago, Illinois, where it purchases television sets and ships them
to various offices throughout the United States. The sets are shipped
by rail in cardboard cartons to the Los Angeles office where they are
tuned and adjusted and delivered to customers. During the 12-month
period ending June 30,1950, the Employer purchased materials, equip-
ment, and supplies valued in excess of $3,000,000, substantially all of
which was shipped in interstate commerce. During the same period
it sold products and services valued in excess of $7,000,000, of which
more than 5 percent was shipped in interstate commerce.
We find, contrary to the contention of the Intervenors, that the
Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
' At the hearing the Intervenors , Local Union No. 196 and Local Union No. 88, Inter-
national Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers of America,
AFL, sought to introduce evidence purporting to show that the Petitioner is not in com-
pliance with the filing requirements of Section 9 (f), (g), and ( h) of the Act , and in their
brief except to the hearing officer 's refusal to permit them to do so. We have repeatedly
held that compliance is a matter for administrative determination , and is not litigable at
the hearing . We are, moreover , administratively satisfied that the Petitioner is in com-
pliance. Treating the Employer ' s brief as a motion to dismiss this proceeding , we shall
deny the motion . Sun Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Company, 86 NLRB 20.
92 NLRB No. 6.
29
30 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
We further find that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert
jurisdiction in this case.2
2. The Petitioner and Intervenors are labor organizations claiming
to represent employees of the Employer.
3. The Employer and the Intervenors contend that a subsisting
collective bargaining contract between them covering the employees
involved herein is a bar to this proceeding. This contract was exe-
cuted on July 19, 1950. ' It contains the following provisions :
All employees covered by this agreement shall become and re-
main members of the Union in good standing as a condition of
employment. When new employees are needed, the Company
shall first call upon the Union; however, if the Union is unable
to furnish employees satisfactory to the Company, non-Union
men may be employed ; provided, however, that when non-Union
men are employed , the Company shall notify the Union of such
fact within forty-eight (48) hours, and such new employees shall
make application within ten (10) days from the date of em-
ployment, and must complete his application within thirty (30)
days from date application is made.
Upon notice by the Union that any employee is not in good
standing, the Employer shall have a maximum of five (5) days
to replace such employee. Such replacement shall be employed
in accordance with the provisions of this agreement applying
to new employees.
No union-security authorization election was held under Section
9 (e) (1) of the Act to authorize these provisions. Moreover, the
preferential hiring provisions go beyond the limited union-security
provisions permitted under Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act, and would
be unlawful even if an authorization election was held.3
The Intervenors contend; however, that its agreement in this case
is saved as a bar by the provisions of Article XV. This article
provides:
Nothing in this agreement shall in any way be construed as
altering, changing, or modifying, any of the provisions of State
or Federal law with respect to the employees concerned hereunder.
In the event that State or Federal regulations or legislation shall
in any manner conflict with the terms of this agreement, said
conflict shall not alter or change any of the remaining provisions
herein, but such regulations or legislation shall become a part of
this agreement.
2 The Borden Company, Southern Division , 91 NLRB 628.
3Morely Manufacturing Company, 83 NLRB 404; Pacific Outdoor Advertising Company,
90 NLRB 106.
MUNTZ TELEVISION, INC. 31
The Board has held that where, as here, a union-security clause
contains no provision expressly deferring its application, but is merely
subject to the general application of a severability clause, the union-
security provision is to be interpreted as becoming immediately ef-
fective and remaining so until the proper tribunal declares that it is
invalid. In these circumstances we have found the contract contain-
ing such an unlawful union-security provision not to bar an election.'
We find accordingly, that the contract between the Employer and the
Intervenors is not a bar to this proceeding.'
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. The Petitioner seeks to represent a unit of all production and
maintenance employees, including office and clerical employees, at the
Employer's Long Beach, California, branch, with certain specified
exclusions. The Employer and the Intervenors contend that the unit
sought by the Petitioner is inappropriate, and that only one which
includes the employees of both the Employer's Long Beach and Los
Angeles branches is appropriate.
The Long Beach branch was established on September 1, 1949.
Until June 1950, the Employer's Pacific Coast general manager man-
aged its Long Beach branch as well as the Los Angeles branch s
Television sets and other merchandise and equipment sold at the
Long Beach branch were sent there from the Los Angeles branch.
Beginning in June 1950, however, a separate manager was put in
charge of th'e Long Beach branch, and by September 1, 1950, the
branch became a separate and independent unit of the Employer,
responsible only to the Employer's main office at Chicago, Illinois.
At no time has there been any employee interchange between the two
branches. Except for the execution of the contract of July 19, 1950,
which antedated by only a few days the filing of the petition in this
case,' there has been no history of bargaining covering the employees
in either of these branches. Under all the circumstances we find that
the unit requested by the Petitioner is appropriate."
We find that all production and maintenance employees at the Em-
ployer's Long Beach, California, branch, including office and clerical
4 Unique Art Manufacturing Co., 83 NLRB 1250; Wood Preserving Division of the
Koppers Company, Inc., 90 NLRB 125. Cf. Wyckoff Steel Company, 86 NLRB 1318.
5 C. Hager & Sons Hinge Manufacturing Company, 80 NLRB 163; Wheelco Instrument
Company, 90 NLRB No. 138. We find it unnecessary to resolve the issue raised by the
parties as to whether the Petitioner notified the Employer of its claim of representation
before or after the contract was signed.
e Also described as the Hollywood branch.
7 The petition herein was filed on July 21, 1950.
1 Cf. Harms Hosiery Co., Inc., 91 NLRB 330.
32 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
employees , installation and delivery men and helpers , warehousemen,
parts clerks , outside servicemen , dispatchers , technicians, bench men,
furniture finishers , but excluding professional men, guards , and all
supervisors as defined in the Act , constitute a unit appropriate for
purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b)
of the Act.
-[Text of Direction - of Election omitted from publication . in this
volume.]