Weyerhaeuser Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 20, 1963

142 N.L.R.B. 702 (N.L.R.B. 1963)

702 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
All security guards employed at the Employer 's Medina facility,
San Antonio, Texas, excluding guard lieutenants, all other employees,
and supervisors as defined in the Act 4
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
4 The parties , who are in basic agreement as to the appropriate unit, stipulated at the
hearing that guard lieutenants are supervisors within the meaning of the Act and should
be excluded from the unit.
Weyerhaeuser Company and General Truck Drivers, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen & Helpers, Local 270, affiliated with Inter-
national Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehouse-
men & Helpers of America , Ind., Petitioner . Case No. 15-RC-
2654. May 20, 1963
DECISION ON REVIEW AND ORDER
On January 28, 1963, the Regional Director for the Fifteenth Re-
gion issued a Decision and Direction of Election in the above-entitled
proceeding. Thereafter, the Employer and the Intervenor,' in ac-
cordance with Section 102.67 of the Board's Rules and Regulations,
as amended, filed with the Board timely requests for review on the
ground, inter alia, that the Regional Director erroneously found the
existing contract between the Employer and the Intervenor not to
constitute a bar to the petition 2 By telegraphic order dated March 1,
1963, the Board granted the requests for review, and stayed the elec-
tion. Thereafter, the Employer and the Intervenor filed briefs.
American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organiza-
tions (AFL-CIO) filed an amicus brief.
The Board' has considered the entire record in the case with
respect to the Regional Director's determination under review, and
makes the following findings :
The Employer and the Intervenor urge, as a bar to the petition
herein, their contract executed on March 27, 1961, which was to be
effective retroactively from January 19, 1961, for a period of 2 years.
They contend that the petition, filed on December 5, 1962, during
the insulated period of the agreement, was untimely and should be
dismissed. The Regional Director found that the contract contained
1 International Brotherhood of Pulp, Sulphite and Paper Mill Workers, AFL-CIO
a The Employer , as an additional ground for review, alleged that the delegation of
authority is unconstitutional and that Section 3(b) of the Act and the Board 's Rules and
Regulations are in conflict with the Administrative Procedures Act For the reasons
stated in Wallace Shops, Inc., 133 NLRB 36, we agree with the Regional Director that
these contentions lack merit.
B 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 Rodgers, Fanning,
and Brown].
142 NLRB No. 82.
WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY 703
a union-security clause which was "incapable of a lawful interpreta-
tion" and removed the agreement as a bar, under the Board's holding
in the Paragon case.4 As the basis for his determination, the Regional
Director found that the agreement, because of its retroactivity, failed
to accord new employees hired between January 19, 1961, its effective
date, and March 27, 1961, its execution date, the required 30-day
statutory grace period.
Section III of the contract reads, in pertinent part, as follows :
Coverage:
1. Membership in Local Union #567 as a condition of employ-
ment shall be required of all employees of the Company within
the coverage of this agreement on and after the 31st day follow-
ing the beginning of such employment or the effective date of this
agreement, whichever is later.
We find merit in the positions of the Employer and the Intervenor.
The record clearly shows a continuous history of collective bargain-
ing between the Intervenor and the Crescent Paper Box Factory, Inc.,
the Employer's predecessor (herein called Crescent), from 1947 until
January 1961, at which time the Employer purchased Crescent's
assets, assumed the existing collective-bargaining contract, which was
from January 21, 1959, to January 21, 1962, and continued to operate
the existing plant. In December 1960, pursuant to the wage-reopener
clause of the contract, the Intervenor gave Crescent timely notice of
its desire to negotiate certain changes therein. However, due to the
transfer of ownership, negotiations were delayed and no agreement
was reached until March 27, 1961, when the Intervenor and the Em-
ployer executed the contract, retroactive to January 19, 1961, and
urged as a bar herein.
The Regional Director relied on Standard Molding Corporation,
137 NLRB 1515, to find that the contract asserted as a bar did not
bar this petition. That case is clearly distinguishable. There too
the contract asserted as a bar had been executed retroactively, al-
though the significant point is that the retroactive period was one
in which no contract had been in effect. Here, because the terms of
the contracts overlapped, coverage under legal union-security clauses
was continuous, and it cannot be said that the current contract specif-
ically withholds from incumbent nonmembers and/or new employees
the statutory 30-day grace period. Accordingly, contrary to the
Regional Director, we find that the contract can be legally inter-
preted, and that it therefore bars the petition, which we hereby
dismiss.
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
A Paragon Products Corporation, 134 NLRB 662.