Saginaw Furniture Shops, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 1, 1952

97 N.L.R.B. 1488 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

1488 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
hold an election because no competent evidence as to the Petitioner's
showing of interest was introduced at the hearing. In our original
Decision, we found no merit in that contention and, in accord with
our customary practice, directed an election after we had administra-
tively- determined that the Petitioner had a substantial showing of
interest. Absent persuasive or compelling reasons to the contrary,
we affirm our earlier ruling that this objection lacks merit .5
Upon the basis of the foregoing, we find that the exceptions of the
Employer raise no material or substantial issues. We therefore adopt
the Regional Director's report and, in accordance therewith, overrule
the objections. As the tally shows that the Petitioner secured a ma-
jority of the valid votes cast in the election, we shall certify it as the
bargaining representative of the employees in the appropriate unit.
Certification of Representatives
IT Is HEREBY C,&RTIFIED that Shopmen's Local No. 536, International
Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers,
AFL, has been designated and selected by a, majority of the Employer's
production and maintenance employees at its Dallas, Texas, plant,
including truck drivers, porters, storekeeper, shipping and receiving
clerks, but excluding office and clerical employees, salesmen, engineer,
guards, watchmen, professional employees, and supervisors as defined
in the Act, as their representative for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining and that, pursuant to Section 9 (a) of the Act, the said organ-
ization is the exclusive representative of all such employees for the
purposes of collective bargaining with respect to rates of pay, wages,
hours of employment, and other conditions of employment.
MEMBER STYLES took no part in the consideration of the above
Supplemental Decision and Certification of Representatives.
5 J. I. Case Company , 95 NLRB 1493 . The Employer 's objection that the hearing "was
conducted contrary to and not in conformity with the provisions of the Administrative
Procedure Act," is without basis in the record. Accordingly, we overrule it.
SAGINAW FURNITURE SHOPS1 INC. and LOCAL 115, INTERNATIONAI.
UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE WORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL ,' PETI-
TIONER. Case No. 7-RC-1271. February 1,1952
Decision and Order
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before W. A. Reinke, hearing offi-
' The Petitioner moved at the hearing to amend the petition in the following respects :
(1) The name of the Petitioner to appear as Local 115, International Union , United Auto-
97 NLRB No. 231.
SAGINAW FURNITURE SHOPS, INC. 1489
cer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from
prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.2
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. On November 15, 1950, the Employer and the Intervenor signed
a contract to be effective until November 15, 1952. The Petitioner
argues that this agreement is not a bar to a present election for the
following reasons : -(1) The contract when executed did not cover
the subject matter of wages and was not, therefore, a complete collec-
tive bargaining agreement; (2) the Intervenor's membership did not
ratify the contract; (3) the contract contains an illegal union-shop
provision; (4) the contract contains an illegal checkoff provision; and
(5) there is a schism in the membership of the Intervenor.
a. Completeness of agreement
Article II, section 7, of the contract reads as follows :
Wage rates.-The subject of wage rates shall be covered in sup-
plemental agreement and shall include a starting wage rate and
is incorporated herein by reference thereto.
The Intervenor's bargaining committee negotiated a wage supple-
ment with the Employer which was read to, and approved by, the
membership at its October 4, 1950, meeting. This wage supplement
was in existence when the contract was executed, and was, according
to the contracting parties, the wage supplement contemplated by the
above-quoted section. Accordingly, we find that the November 15
contract covered the subject matter of wages and was in all other
respects a complete collective bargaining agreement.
b. Ratification
The Petitioner contends that the membership of the Intervenor
did not ratify the wage and overtime provisions in the agreement,3 as
required by the Intervenor's constitution, and therefore that no legally .
valid contract exists. We have already found that the wage supple-
ment was approved by the membership at its October 4 meeting.
mobile Workers of America, AFL; ( 2) the name of the union now representing the
employees to appear as Saginaw Woodworkers' Federation , Local No. 1, unaffiliated. The
motion to amend , having been referred to the Board by the hearing officer, is hereby granted.
9 The hearing officer referred to the Board the motion of the Employer and Intervenor
to dismiss the petition . For the reasons hereinafter stated, we grant this motion.
Upon a proper showing of interest in this proceeding , the Saginaw Woodworkers' Fed-
eration, herein called the Intervenor , was permitted to intervene.
s The parties are in agreement that the other terms of the agreement were approved by
the membership.
1490 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
With respect to the overtime provision, the record shows, contrary
to the Petitioner's contention, that at the special meeting of October
7 the Intervenor's membership voted to withdraw its demand for in-
creased overtime compensation, thereby impliedly authorizing the
continuation of the then existing overtime provision in the new con-
tract. This conclusion is substantiated by the minutes of that meeting,
by an entry to the effect that "the president reported that management
would not accept -proposals to pay time and a half for over 8 hours in
one workday; if forced to pay this-they said they would operate 8 hours
a day and 5 hours on Saturday. There was a motion to remain on the
45 hour week. Motion carried." We therefore find that the Novem-
ber 15, 1950, contract was ratified by the Intervenor's membership as
required by the union constitution.
c. Illegal union-security clause
The Petitioner contends that the contract contains an illegal union-
shop clause. Article II, section 6, of the contract reads as follows :
The Company agrees as a condition of employment that all
eligible employees shall become members of the Union within
thirty (30) days after the execution of this agreement or within
thirty (30) days after his hire, whichever is later. All employees
who become members of the Union shall remain members of the
Union during the term of this agreement. This provision shall
be effective immediately after the Union meets the requirements
of Section 9 (e) of the Labor-Management Relations Act of 1947.
Even before the recent amendment of the Act, the Board held such a
clause valid because the language therein deferred operation of the
union-security provision until the requirements of the Act with respect
to the union-shop elections had been met 4 Now there can be no ques-
tion of the validity of the clause as Congress has eliminated the
requirement of a union-shop authorization election 5 Hence, even
assuming, as the Petitioner contends, that the Intervenor and the
Employer are actually giving effect to this provision, the contract is
not thereby removed as a bar to this proceeding, because the provision
in all respects meets the statutory requirements.
d. The checkoff provision
Article I, section 2, of the contract reads as follows :
... The Company will honor from each employee a voluntary,
revocable, signed instruction to - deduct his Union dues, the
initiation fee, if any , from his wages , which deduction the Com-
pany will remit promptly to the financial secretary of the Union.
4 Allen V. Smith, Inc., 96 NLRB 230.
5 Public Law 189, 82nd Cong., Chap. 534, 1st Sess ; Davia Motor Company, Inc., 97 NLRB
No. 22.
SAGINAW FURNITURE SHOPS, INC. 1491
The Petitioner asserts that this contractual provision is unlawful be-
cause it does not provide that such assignments shall be for 1 year
or the term*of the contract, whichever is the lesser5 The absence of
any reference to the duration of the assignment renders the contract
ambiguous as to the length of time the parties intended these assign-
ments to run. As no extrinsic evidence was adduced indicating that
the assignments were to run for more than a year, we shall, under usual
rules of contract construction ,7 interpret the checkoff provision so as
to make the contract legal, i . e., that the parties intended the wage
assignment to be limited to the period set forth in the statute .s The
Peitioner also argues that the checkoff was not voluntary, and that
the employees were forced to sign the wage assignments. As the in-
tention of the parties, as expressed in the contract, is clearly to the
contrary, this is not an appropriate proceeding in which to investigate
the administration of this contract provision.9
e. Schism
At a meeting of the Intervenor called December 2, 1950, ostensibly
for the purpose of electing new officers, the approximately 30 members
attending, out of a minimum total of 220, voted on a proposal to affili-
ate with the Petitioner. The motion was carried. Because of this
event and its occurrence at a meeting at which a constitutional quorum
was present, the Petitioner argues that a "split" exists in the ranks of
the Intervenor which warrants application of the Board's "schism
doctrine" set forth in the Boston Machine case,10 and subsequent cases.
It argues accordingly that-an immediate election should be directed,
despite the Intervenor's existing contract. We do not agree.
There are important distinctions between the situation here pre-
sented and that which faced the Board in the Boston Machine case.
In that case, the split in the organization was created by a basic intra-
union conflict over policy and management. The Board could be
certain that- in ordering an election to resolve the question concerning
representation raised by the two claimants to representation rights,
the Board was not merely facilitating a raid by a rival union during
9 Section 302 of the Act provides that the restrictions contained therein agdinst pay-
ment or delivery of money by emploi ees to their employer shall not be applicable :
With respect to money deducted from the wages of employees in payment of member-
ship dues in a labor organization : P, of tded, That the employer has received from
each employee , on whose account such deductions are made , a written assignment
which shall not be irrevocable for a period of more than one year , or beyond the ter-
mination date of the applicable collective agreement , whichever occurs sooner ,
[Emphasis added I
° "An interpretation which makes the contract or agreement lawful will be preferred
over one which mould make it unlawful." 3 Williston, Contracts, revised edition, sec-
tion 620.
s Decker Clothes , Inc, 83 NLRB 494; cf. The Broderick Company , 85 NLRB 708.
Cf Tom A . Newton d/ b/a Newton Investigation Bureau, 93 NLRB 1574.
19 Boston Machine Works , 89 NLRB 59
1492 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
a contract's term, or permitting a group 9f dissident members to ex-
press their dissatisfaction with the bargain made by the representative
holding the contract. Indeed, the circumstances in the Boston Ma-
chine case were such that no salutary stabilizing purpose could have
been served by applying the contract bar rule. The Board was con-
vinced from the facts before it, that the bargaining relationship there
had become sO confused that an immediate direction of election was
the only means by which the Board could hope to assist the employer,
the employees and a bargaining representative to continue to live to-
gether with some semblance of stability. While the Board has directed
elections in subsequent schism cases where the facts were not as clearly
indicative of a complete breakdown in the bargaining relationship as
in the Boston Machine case, the Board has become increasingly aware
that this exception to the contract bar rule may, by too broad an ap-
plication, become an unwarranted means of circumventing that rule.
Where the factual basis of the alleged schism consists of nothing more
than the sort of formal meeting that took place in this case, the Board
does not believe that an exception to its'iiormal contract bar doctrine
is warranted. We shall, accordingly, dismiss the petition.
Order
Upon the basis of the entire record in the case, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the petition filed herein be, and
it hereby is, dismissed.
MEMBER HOUSTON took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Order.
STACK & COMPANY and LOCAL No. 27, RETAIL CLERKS INTERNATIONAL
ASSOCIATION, AFL, PETITIONER. Case No. 18-BC-1219. .February
111950
Decision and Direction of Election
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Erwin A. Peterson, 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 Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Murdock and Styles].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
97 NLRB No. 230.