The Bonney Forge and Tool Works

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 24, 1957

117 N.L.R.B. 1765 (N.L.R.B. 1957)

THE BONNEY FORGE AND TOOL WORKS 1765
The, Bonney Forge and Tool Works 1 and United Steelworkers of
America, AFL-CIO, Petitioner
The Bonney Forge and Tool Works and International Associa-
tion of Machinists , AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Cases Nos. 8-RC-2893
and 8-RC-2900. May 24,1957
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon petitions duly filed, under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before W. R.
Griesbach, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the
hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed 3
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 [Members Murdock, Rodgers, and Bean].
Upon the entire record in the 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.
The Employer contends that its current contract with Employees,
Inc., executed June 22, 1956, for a term of 3 years, bars an election
of representatives at this time. The Petitioners, the UAW, and the
Boilermakers, contend, inter alia, that the contract is not a bar because
it contains a union-security agreement which was executed at a time
when Employees, Inc., was not in compliance with the filing require-
ments of Section 9 (f), (g), and (h) of the Act. Employees, Inc.,
takes no position with regard to this issue, but expressed willingness
to participate in an election at this-time.
i The Employer 's name appears as amended at the hearing
2 The hearing officer properly permitted the Bonney Forge and Tool Works Employees,
Inc., hereinafter referred to as Employees, Inc, to intervene on the basis of its contrac-
tual interest in the employees involved herein International Union, United Automobile,
Aircraft & Agricultural Implement Workers of America, AFL-CIO, hereinafter referred to
as UAW, and International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders , Blacksmiths,
Forgers and Helpers, AFL-CIO, hereinafter referred to as Boilermakers , were permitted
to intervene on the basis of a card showing of interest among the employees involved
herein.
3A question was raised at the hearing as to ' whether Employees , Inc, •is a labor or-
ganization within the meaning of the Act As the record indicates that it was organized
for the purpose of representing the employees of the Employer in collective -bargaining
negotiations concerning wages,' hours , and working conditions , we find that it is a labor
organization within the meaning of the Act.
117 NLRB No. 231.
1766 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
As Employees, Inc., had never been in compliance before it executed
the contract, had not indicated any intent to comply on or before the
date it executed the contract, and had not achieved compliance at the
time the petitions in this proceeding were filed, we find that its con-
tract with the Employer is not a bar.' The Employer, however, con-
tends that such a finding is contrary to the Supreme Court's state-
ment in the Arkansas Oak Flooring 5 case that
Subsections (f), (g), and (h) of Section 9 merely describe ad-
vantages that may be gained by compliance with their condition.
The very specificity of the advantages to be gained and the ex-
press provision for the loss of these advantages imply that no
consequences other than those so listed shall result from non-
compliance.
The Employer contends that by such language, the Supreme Court
limited the consequences flowing from noncompliance and that the
removal of a noncomplying union's contract as a bar is not one of those
consequences. This may well be so with respect to lawful contracts
entered into by such unions, and indeed, the Board applies its contract-
bar rules to such contracts in the same manner as it applies such rules
to contracts of complying unions a However, the contract urged as a
bar herein is unlawful, because it contains an unlawful union-security
agreement. Section 8 (a) (3) specifically conditions the right of em-
ployers to enter into such contracts upon compliance by the contract-
ing union with Section 9 (f), (g), and (h). Without such compliance,
such contracts constitute an unlawful infringement upon the right of
employees to refrain from joining a union as guaranteed by Section 7.
To do what the Employer urges would substantially lessen the dis-
advantages imposed upon noncomplying unions by the Act. Accord-
ingly, as the Employer's contract with Employees, Inc., is unlawful
it cannot serve as a bar to an election of representatives.
4. In accordance with the parties' stipulation we find that all pro-
duction and maintenance employees, employed at the Employer's
Alliance, Ohio, plant, including shipping and receiving employees,
but excluding office employees, salaried clerical employees, guards,
professional employees, and all supervisors as defined in the Act con-
stitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
4 Aeronca Manufacturing Corporation , 114 NLRB 1516, 1518.
6 United Mine Workers of America, et al. v. Arkansas Oak Flooring Company, 351 U. S.
62, 73.
6 Northern Indiana Public Service Company, 91 NLRB 172.