Reading Tube Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 9, 1949

87 N.L.R.B. 550 (N.L.R.B. 1949)

In the Matter of READING TUBE CORPORATION, EMPLOYER and STEEL
WORKERS FEDERATION, PETITIONER -
Case No. 4-RC-519.-Decided December 9, 1949
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed , a hearing was held before John H.
Garver, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hear-
ing 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 Murdock].
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
employees of the Employer.
3. The Intervenor contends that its current contract with the Em-
ployer is a bar to the present proceeding . The contract was originally
executed on December 1, 1946, and was thereafter extended , in Novem-
ber 1948, until June 1, 1950 . The original contract provides that :
All employees employed after December 26, 1946, shall be re-
quired to become members of the Union at the end of the thirty
( 30) day probationary period.
A supplemental agreement dated November 6, 1948, provides that:
The Union agrees that the Company shall not be required to vio-
late existing State or Federal Laws in order to comply with the
provisions of the contract pertaining to Union Security.
There has been no union -security election pursuant to Section 9 (e)
(1) of the Act among the Employer 's employees . The Intervenor was
therefore not authorized to include a union-security clause* in the
1948 renewal agreement? The Employer and the Intervenor claim
1 C. Hager h Sons Hinge Manufacturing Company, SO NLRB 163.
87 NLRB No. 86.
550
READING TUBE CORPORATION 551
that the illegality of the union-shop provisions is cured by the terms
of the supplemental agreement. As we recently held, however, an
unauthorized union-shop provision remains operative despite such a
modifying clause until and unless an authorized tribunal passes upon
its exercise in a particular instance 2 Accordingly, we find that the
contract herein is not a bar to a present determination of representa-
tives, and the Intervenor's motion to dismiss this proceeding on that
ground is therefore denied.
We find that 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 accordance with the agreement of the parties, we find that
all the production and maintenance employees at the Employer's
Reading, Pennsylvania, plant, excluding executives, foremen, assist-
ant foremen, salaried and clerical employees, guards, and supervisors 3
constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining,
within'the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the
purposes of collective bargaining with the Employer, an election by
secret ballot shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later
than 30 days from the date of this Direction, under the direction
and supervision of the Regional Director for the Region in which
this case was heard, and subject to Sections 203.61 and 203.62 of
National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations, among the
employees in the unit found appropriate in paragraph numbered 4,
above, who were employed during the pay-roll period immediately
preceding the date of this Direction of Election, including employees
who did not work during said pay-roll period because they were ill
or on vacation or temporarily laid off, but excluding those employees
who have since quit or been discharged for cause and have not been
rehired or reinstated prior to the date of the election, and. also ex-
cluding employees on strike who are not entitled to reinstatement, to
determine whether they desire to be represented, for purposes of
collective bargaining, by Steel Workers Federation, or by United
Steelworkers of America, CIO, or by neither.
2 Reading Hardware Corporation, 85 NLRB 610, in which we said, "In the absence of
a specific clause expressly deferring application of the union-shop provision , we believe
that this clause can only be construed to mean that unless and until a tribunal authorized
to interpret and administer the law determines a particular discharge for non-membership
in the Intervenor is unlawful, the union security provisions of the contract are fully
effective."
3 This unit, consisting of about 250 employees , is the one covered by the current contract.