Rex Curtain Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 29, 1951

97 N.L.R.B. 899 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

REX CURTAIN CORPORATION 899
this agreement or within thirty-one (31) days after their employ-
ment, whichever date is later . Members having joined the Union
shall, as a condition of employment, continue such membership.
Exception:
Persons employed by the Company during the summer process-
ing season , July 15 to November 15, shall not be required to
become members of the Union during said period but shall be
required to join the Union and continue membership if they con-
tinue employment after November 15.
The Petitioner asserts that this clause exceeds the limited form of
union security permitted by the proviso to Section 8 (a) (3) as it does
not permit a 30-day escape period for employees who are members of
the Union when the contract was executed. However, the Board has
recently held that a union-shop provision, otherwise valid, need not
provide a grace period to employees who already are members of the
Union on the effective date of the contract.' The Petitioner also asserts
that the quoted "exception" is invalid in that it requires seasonal em-
ployees to join the Union after November 15 regardless of whether
or not they have been employed for 30 or more days. We are of
the opinion, however, that the "exception," when read with the pre-
ceding clause, does not deprive seasonal employees employed after
November 15 of the 30-day grace period but merely exempts them from
the general requirement of union membership unless they become per-
manent employees by their retention after November 15. In the latter
event, the provision regarding permanent employees would apply to
them. Accordingly, we find that the contract is a bar to a present
determination of representatives and shall dismiss the petition herein.
Order
IT Is HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for certification of representa-
tives herein be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
i Charles A. Krause Milling Co., 97 NLRB 536, overruling to the extent indicated
therein, Worthing ton Pump and Machinery corporation , 93 NLRB 527, Rock- Ole Manufac-
turing Corporation , 93 NLRB 1196 , and Blue Ribbon Creamery , 94 NLRB 201.
REX CURTAIN CORPORATION AND SUPERBA PLASTICS CORPORATION 1 and
AMALGAMATED LOCAL 102, UNITED AUTOMOBILE WORKERS, AFL,
PETITIONER. Case No. 2-RC-3430. December 29,1951
Decision and Order
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Herbert C. Kane, hearing
' The Employers ' names appear as amended at the hearing.
97 NLRB No. 121.
900 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case the Board finds :
1. The Employers are engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent employees of
the Employers.
3. The Intervenor, Textile Workers Union of America, Greater New
York Joint Board, CIO,2 contends that its contract with the Em-
ployers covering the employees in the unit petitioned for, which ex-
pires on June 1, 1952, is a bar-to this proceeding. The Petitioner con-
tends that the contract-bar doctrine is inapplicable, on the grounds
that the union-security clause in the contract is unlawful, and that a
schism has occurred within the CIO Intervenor at the plant involved.
With regard to the union-security clause, the Petitioner contends
that the clause is unlawful because the contract covers production and
maintenance employees of Rex Curtain Corporation and Superba
Plastics Corporation, whereas the antecedent UA election in Case No.
2-UA-1241 was held among the production and maintenance em-
ployees of Home Curtain Corporation.3 However, the same two in-
dividuals own all the stock in the three corporations, one man is in
charge of labor relations for all, all three are located in one plant
which has a large sign on the roof reading, "Home Curtain Corpora-
tion," and the workers all consider themselves employees of Home
Curtain. It therefore appears that the three companies are in reality
one employer.4 Under these circumstances, it appears that the union-
security clause was properly authorized.
With regard to the alleged schism, the contract was signed for the
CIO Intervenor, an amalgamated organization, by one of its repre-
sentatives on April 15, 1950. On March 2, 1951, approximately 200
of the 281 employees in the unit held a special meeting, in a public
tavern. Those attending voted unanimously to- disaffiliate from the
CIO Intervenor. However, this meeting was called and advertised by
the Petitioner; its president, vice president, and secretary officiated;
and, according to the Petitioner's witness, it was not a meeting of the
CIO Intervenor, but was a meeting ;of the employees with the Peti-
Upholsterers International Union of North America, Local 601, AFL, also intervened.
The CIO Intervenor was certified on March 29, 1948.
4 Lloyd A . Fry Roofing Company, et al., 92 NLRB 1170.
WESCO MANUFACTURING COMPANY 901
tioner.5 Although the shop-committee members, along with the CIO
Intervenor's representative, signed a supplement to the contract on
May 22, 1951, after this meeting took place, the employees have never
rescinded the action taken at the March 2, 1951, meeting. The CIO
Intervenor remains as an active, functioning union.
Upon the basis of the entire record in this case, and for the reasons
set forth in the Boyle-Midway case,6 we conclude that no schism has
occurred within the Intervenor, and that the current contract between
the Intervenor and the Employers bars a new determination of repre-
sentatives at this time. Accordingly, we shall dismiss the petition.
Order
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition filed by Amalgamated Local
102, United Automobile Workers, AFL, be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
The examination of the Petitioner's witness, Hazel Correa, was as follows
Q. Was this a meeting of Local 102 of the Automobile workers?
A. Yes.
Q. This was not a meeting of the Textile Workers?
A. No, this was a meeting of the Automobile Workers.
* * * * * * *
Q. Now, Mrs. Correa, you have stated that this meeting which took place on -larch 2,
1951 was a meeting of Local 102 of the UAW-AFL, is that correct?
The WITNzss . That is what I stated, but I made a mistake. I meant to say that it
was a meeting of the employees of Home Curtain, Rex Curtain and Superba with 102
[the Petitioner].
Bole-Midway, Inc., 97 NLRB 895.
WESCO MANUFACTURING COMPANY and CANVAS, TENT AND AWNING
WORKERS, A. F. L., LOCAL 15, PETITIONER . Case No. 01-RC-0O98.
December 09, 1951
Decision and Order -
On October 4, 1951, pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon
consent election, an election by secret ballot was conducted under the
direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Twenty-
first Region, among employees in the stipulated unit. Upon the com-
pletion of the election, a tally of ballots was furnished to the parties.
The tally reveals that of approximately 136 eligible voters, 103 valid
ballots were cast, of which 51 were for and 52 against the Petitioner,
none was challenged, and 1 was void.
Thereafter, on October 8, 1951, the Petitioner filed timely objections
to the conduct of the election. In accordance with the rules and regu-
lations of the Board, the Regional Director conducted an investiga-
tion, and, on November 8, 1951, issued and duly served upon the
parties his report on objections to the election. In his report the
97 NLRB No. 134.
980209-52-vol. 97-58