Stemar Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 10, 1956

116 N.L.R.B. 578 (N.L.R.B. 1956)

.578 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
be computed on a quarterly basis in the manner established by the Board in F. W.
Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, 294.
As the unfair labor practices committed by the Respondent were of a character
striking at the roots of employee rights safeguarded by the Act, and indicate a danger
that the Respondent may continue , although not necessarily by the same means, to
defeat self-organization of its employees , it will also be recommended that the Re-
spondent cease and desist from infringing in any manner upon the employee rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
It will also be recommended that the Respondent make available to the Board,
upon request, payroll and other records to facilitate the checking of any back pay due.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the
case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Atlas Boot Manufacturing Co., Inc., is an employer within the meaning of
Section 2 (2) of the Act and is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Boot and Shoe Workers Union, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
3. By interfering with, restraining , and coercing its employees in the exercise of
rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, Respondent has engaged in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
4. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Robert L.
Thompson , thereby discouraging membership in the aforesaid labor organization,
the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8 (a) (3) and (1) of the Act.
5. The Respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of Section
8 (a) (1) in certain other alleged instances in the complaint to the extent as found
and shown previously herein.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
Stemar Company and James M. Rogers , Petitioner and Commer-
cial Artists Local Union 1765 , B. of P . D. & P. of A., AFL-CIO.
Case No.13-RD-9285. August 10,1956
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 William D. Boetticher, hear-
ing 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 Union contends that the commerce evidence is hearsay and
therefore is insufficient to support a finding of jurisdiction.
The Employer's manager testified that the Employer is an Illinois
corporation engaged in the manufacture of technical manuals or pub-
lications, that he estimated total sales at approximately $500,000, of
which "somewhere close to $50,000" represented shipments outside
the State of Illinois and $250,000 represented intrastate sales to In-
ternational Harvester Company, a multistate enterprise. The witness
based his estimates on information furnished by the president of the
Employer and on his own observation of work done under his super-
vision; he has supervised the preparation of publications for the
116 NLRB No. 70.
STEMAR COMPANY - 579
International Harvester account. The Union introduced no evidence
of its own which would tend to show that the manager 's estimates were
inaccurate.
We find that the evidence adduced is of sufficient probative value to
justify its consideration in determining whether to assert jurisdic-
tion.' On the basis of this evidence, we find that the Employer is
engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act and that, in view
of the business done with International Harvester Company, it will
effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction.2
2. The Petitioner asserts that the Union, which is being currently
recognized by the Employer as bargaining representative of the em-
ployees in the appropriate unit, is no longer the representative as
defined in Section 9 (a) of the Act.
3. The Union contends that an existing collective-bargaining con-
tract is a bar to the present petition.
On March 30, 1954, the Employer and the Union entered into a col-
lective-bargaining agreement for a period of 1 year with provision
for automatic renewal from year to year thereafter unless either party
gives notice of a desire for changes at least 60 days before any annual
expiration date. No notice of a desire for changes has ever been
served by either contracting party. Accordingly, the contract has
been automatically renewed to March 30, 1957. As the petition was
not filed until May 4, 1956, long after the most recent automatic re-
newal date, the Union asserts that-the contract is a bar.
The contract contains a union-security provision. Section 8 (a)
^(3) of the Act, as amended in 1951, provides that such a provision is
lawful only if "at the time the agreement was made or within the
preceding twelve months [the labor organization] received from the
Board a notice of compliance with sections 9 (f), (g), and (h). . . ."
The Board's records show that the Union was in compliance on March
30, 1954, the day the contract was executed, but that its compliance
lapsed on June 12, 1954, and was not reinstated until June 7, 1956,
after the date the contract as automatically renewed in 1956 became
effective and after the filing of the decertification petition.
A contract containing an automatic renewal provision is "made"
within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) each time that the contract
is renewed for an additional contract period 3 This interpretation
obviously accords with the intention of Congress, namely, that labor
organizations should be encouraged to achieve and to renew compliance
at regular intervals, thus insuring the permanent removal of Com-
munists from official positions within labor organizations. As the
Union did not satisfy the compliance requirements of Section 9 (f),
' fitternational Union of Operating Engineers, Local 12 (Crook Company ), 115 NLRB 23.
2 Whippany Motor Co., Inc., 115 NLRB 52
-1 Hughes-Vertin Lime Company , 104 NLRB 185.
580 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(g), and (h) during the relevant period preceding the 1956 renewal of
the 1954 agreement, we find that the contract as renewed is not a bar
to the present petition.'
Accordingly, we find that a question affecting commerce exists con-
cerning 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. The following employees constitute a unit appropriate for the
purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9
(b) of the Act: 6
All artists, photographers, revampers, photo-copyists, retouchers,'
negative retouchers, darkroom workers, photostat operators, artists'
and photographers' apprentices, helpers, trainees, and assistants at'
the Employer's Chicago, Illinois, plant, excluding all other employees
and supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from pub] ication.]
CHAIRMAN LEEWAY and MEMBER MURDOCK tool. no part in the con-
sideration of the above Decision and Direction of Election.
4 Mason Can Company, 115 NLRB 105.
'The Union also asserted that the petition was not filed in good faith , but at the
behest of the Employer . It offered no affirmative evidence to support this contention.
Accordingly, it is hereby rejected.
6 The unit finding is identical with the unit covered by the present contract between the
Employer and the Union.
The Midwest Conveyor Company, Inc. and Sheet Metal Workers'
International Association , Local No. 2, AFL-CIO, Petitioner.
Case No. 17-PC-2244. Aurpust13,1956
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 Joss r)h E. DeSio, nearing
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 em-
ployees 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.
4. The Petitioner seeks to represent the production and maintenance
employees at the Employer's plant at 7th Street and Sunshine Road,
116 NLRB No. 74.