Seattle Bakers Bureau, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 23, 1952

101 N.L.R.B. 1344 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

1344 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
event a majority vote for the Intervenor the Board finds the existing
unit to be appropriate and the Regional Director will issue a certifica-
tion of results of election to such effect.
5. The determination of representatives.
The Employer asserts that this plant will cease operations by the
middle of August 1953. It therefore contends that it would not ef-
fectuate the purposes of the Act to conduct a representation election
at this time. The record reveals that the Employer is in the process
of constructing a plant located at Appliance Park, Kentucky, which
will consolidate the manufacture of all of the major appliances of the
Company. The Trenton, New Jersey, plant, the plant in question, will
be affected by this consolidation. The plant manager testified that
the cessation of production of the automatic driers will take place
during the first quarter of 1953. The plans, however, do not call for
the complete cessation of production until sometime, as indicated
above, in mid-August of 1953. The cessation of the production of
the driers will necessarily involve a layoff of some of the production
and maintenance employees, as well as some of the tool makers. The
record, however, is not clear as to how many of the tool and die
makers and model makers will be affected by the layoff during the
first quarter of 1953, and between the first quarter and the date of
the complete shutdown in mid-August of 1953.
As the cessation of operations will continue over an extended period
of time, and as all of the tool and die makers and model makers are
presently employed, and as a substantial and representative number
will continue to be employed for a major portion of the termination
period, we perceive no reason for depriving them of an opportunity to
select a collective bargaining representative at this time io
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
10 Cf. The Girdler Corp., 96 NLRB 894; General Motors Corp., 88, NLRB 119.
SEATTLE BAKERS' BUREAU , INC. and CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGAN-
IZATIONS, PETITIONER . Case No. 19-RC-1186. December 03,
195,0
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 Donald D. McFeely, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from
prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
101 NLRB No. 196.
SEATTLE BAKERS' BUREAU, INC. 1345
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 Styles and Peterson].
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 organization involved claims to represent certain
employees of the Employer.'
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9
(c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
The Employer and Intervenor contend that their contract of June
21, 1952, is a bar to any election at this time. The Petitioner contends
that the contract cannot be a bar because it contains an illegal union-
security clause. The current contract runs until May 1, 1953, with
automatic renewal from year to year in the absence of 60 days' notice
to terminate by either party. The contract contains the following
clause :
Membership in good standing in the Union shall be a condition
of employment. For the purpose of this section, tender of the
initiation fee on or immediately following the thirtieth day of
employment and tender of the periodic dues uniformly required
as a condition of retaining membership shall constitute good
standing in the Union.
This clause requires that all employees become members of the In-
tervenor but fails to accord old employees who were not members on
the date of execution of the contract a 30-day grace period from that
date. On its face the clause does not conform with Section 8 (a) (3)
of the Act, and is sufficient to remove the contract as a bar.2 The
Employer and Intervenor contend, however, that the hearing officer
improperly excluded evidence offered by the Intervenor tending to
show the contract was not enforced as to old employees who were not
members of the Intervenor at the time of the execution of the contract.
The Board has consistently held that it will not admit parol evi-
dence to determine the intent of the parties where, as here, the con-
tractual language is clear and unambiguous .3
The Employer and Intervenor also contend that the inclusion of
I Bakers Union Local No. 9, AFL, intervened at the hearing on the basis of a present
contractual interest.
O Krambo Food Stores, Inc., 98 NLRB 1320.
"New Castle Products, 99 NLRB 811, and cases cited therein . Hess, Goldsmith A Co.,
Inc., 101 NLRB 1009. See Krambo Food Stores, Inc., supra.
1346 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
union-shop clauses identical to that quoted above in all previous con-
tracts since 1947 operates to validate the clause.4
The present contract was executed on June 21, 1952. The previous
contract expired on May 1, 1952. There is no evidence that the parties
operated under any contract in the interim period. Although the con-
tract which expired on May 1, 1952, provides, "The terms of a new
agreement resulting from a reopening as provided above shall be
retroactive to the anniversary date upon which the contract is re-
opened," the present contract nowhere states that it is retroactive and
affirmatively states that its effective date is June 21, 1952. Under these
circumstances, we find that the two contracts were not in fact con-
tinuous. Accordingly, while the earlier contract had the same union-
shop clause as the current contract, any employees hired between May 1
and June 21, 1952, would not have been accorded the statutory grace
period under either of the two contracts 5
We find, accordingly, that the contract is not a bar, and a ques-
tion of representation presently exists .6
4. We find that the following unit is appropriate for the purposes of
collective bargaining : 7
All employees employed by member employers of Seattle Bakers'
Bureau, Inc., as foremen,8 dough mixers, oven men, moulder men,
machine men, bench hands, control room men, jobbers, bakers, helpers,
but excluding guards, professional employees, and supervisors as de-
fined in the Act, and also excluding machinists and engineers, cleri-
cals, office employees, and the following classifications : 9 Driver sales-
men, special delivery drivers, over-the-road transport drivers, delivery
men, semitruck and trailer drivers, loaders, checkers, wrappers, de-
livery men for retail bakeries, stockmen and flour blenders, assistant
stockmen and flour blenders, men in charge of miscellaneous help, mis-
cellaneous help, floor ladies, assistant floor ladies, machine operators,
experienced girls, beginners and all other employeers.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
4 The contract expiring May 1, 1952, was received in evidence by the hearing officer. Re
rejected an offer by the Intervenor to prove that previous contracts contained the identical
clause. In view of our holding below, we find the rejection proper
Kress Dairy, Inc„ 98 NLRB 369. Cf. Josten Engraving Company, 98 NLRB 49.
We find it unnecessary to consider other grounds raised by the Petitioner for removing
the contract bar.
4 The unit was stipulated by the parties.
8 The parties entered into a stipulation regarding the duties and responsibilities of the
foremen. It is clear from the stipulation, and we find, that the foremen are not super-
visors within the meaning of the Act
9 These employees are presently in units covered by existing contracts with other unions.