Specialty Woodcraft, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 4, 1954

107 N.L.R.B. 1066 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

1066 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
SPECIALTY WOODCRAFT , INC. and MISCELLANEOUS INDUS-
TRIAL WORKERS UNION, LOCAL 134, AFL , Petitioner. Case
No. 2-RC-6290 . February 4, 1954
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 Aaron Weiss-
man, hearing 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 Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning
of the Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent
certain employees of the Employer.'
3. The Intervenor contends that its current collective-bar-
gaining contract with the Employer covering the employees
involved herein constitutes a bar to this proceeding. With
respect to this contention , the record discloses that on May 4,
1951 , the Intervenor and the Employer executed a 1-year con-
tract which expired on August 31, 1952 , and that on September
10, 1952 , this contract , subject to minor modifications, and
providing for a 30 -day yearly automatic renewal clause, was
renewed and extended for a 2-year period , effective through
August 31 , 1954 . As the instant petition was filed on October 14,
1953, and at a time when the agreement had almost a year to
run, we would ordinarily find the contract to constitute a bar to
representation proceedings absent other factors whichwarrant
a contrary finding.
The Petitioner does not specifically challenge the validity of
the union - security provisions in the contract . However, as the
agreement is urged as a bar to an immediate election , we shall
examine these provisions to determine whether they exceed
the limited form of union - security agreement permitted by
Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
Among the provisions included in the current contract are
the following:
FIRST : The Employer agrees hereby to employ none but
members in good standing of the said Union and no others
to perform whatever work may be necessary . . . and the
Union agrees to furnish the said Employer with workers
competent to do the work aforementioned.
SECOND: The Employer agrees hereby to apply for all
new help to the Union , and the Union agrees to furnish
such help out of its membership as it may be able. In the
event that the Union should be unable to furnish the Employer
iFurniture Workers Union , Local No. 76 -- Bm UFWA , CIO, was permitted to intervene
based upon its contractual relations with the Employer.
107 NLRB No. 209.
SPECIALTY WOODCRAFT, INC. 1067
with the help required within 48 hours, the Employer
may hire help wherever obtainable , it being understood
that such help employed not through the medium of the
Union are to become members of the Union within one
month after commencement of said employment , as a con-
dition of continued employment.
TWENTY NINTH: The FIRST and SECOND clauses of
this agreement shall be effective to the extent permitted
by law.
THIRTY FIRST : With respect to the FIRST, SECOND, and
TWENTY NINTH clauses of the agreement . . . it is under-
stood and agreed that the same shall become effective and
operative immediately upon compliance of the Union with
the legal prerequisites then in force and effect.
The preferential hiring aspect of the above provisions exceeds
the limited union-security provisions permitted under Section
8 (a) (3) of the Act 2 We deem it immaterial that the record
fails to disclose the extent to which these unlawful union-secur-
ity clauses have been applied , for the Board holds that the
mere existence of such provisions acts as a restraint on
employees.'
The inclusion of paragraphs 29 and 31 in the provisions of
the contract does not warrant a different finding, for para-
graph 29 does not expressly defer application of the illegal
union-security provision and the deferment contained in para-
graph 31 does not relate to any illegality in the union-security
clause , but only to the capacity of the Union to obtain union-
security benefits -- a matter not presently before us . We find,
accordingly , that the contract between the Employer and the
Intervenor does not constitute a bar to this proceeding.
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 accord with the agreement of the parties at the hearing,
we find that all production and maintenance employees at the
Employer's Paterson , New Jersey , plant, excluding office
clerical employees , guards, watchmen , professional employees,
and supervisors as defined in the Act , constitute a unit appro-
priate for the purpose of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9 ( b) of the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
2Muntz Television, Inc., 92 NLRB 29.
3F. J. Kress Box Company, 97 NLRB 1109.