Avco Manufacturing Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 9, 1953

106 N.L.R.B. 1104 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

1 104 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
NEW IDEA, DIVISION AVCO MANUFACTURING CORPORA-
TION and INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE,
AIRCRAFT & AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS
OF AMERICA, CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 13-RC-3305.
September 9, 1953
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Kenneth L.
Keith, 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. No 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, for the following reasons:
Local 29 urges as a bar to this proceeding its current con-
tract executed and made effective on June 10, 1952. The
Petitioner contends that the union-security provision of this
contract is illegal because of the failure of Local 29 to
achieve timely compliance with Section 9 (f) and (h) of the
Act and that therefore the contract cannot serve as a bar.
Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act, as amended in October 1951,
requires, with respect to union-shop contracts, that a labor
organization must have "at the time the agreement was
made or within the preceding 12 months received from the
Board a notice of compliance with Section 9 (f), (g), and
(h). . . ." Local 29 received from the Board a notice of
compliance dated March 21, 1951. Compliance was maintained
until the spring of 1952. Thereafter, Local 29 initiated steps
to renew its compliance, but because of a delay, resulting
from an exchange of correspondence between Local 29 and
Board agents with respect to documents submitted to and
requested by the Board compliance agents, another notice of
compliance was not issued until November 14, 1952. Mean-
while on June 10, 1952, Local 29 and the Employer executed
the union-shop contract here asserted as a bar which was
continued in effect by the parties after Local 29 achieved
compliance on November 14, 1952, and was operative at the
time of the filing of the petition herein on April 10, 1953.
,Associated Unions of America, Metal Fabricators, Local 29, herein called Local 29,
intervened on the basis of its contract. District Lodge 108, International Association of
Machinists, herein called the IAM, intervened upon a sufficient showing of interest.
106 NLRB No. 174.
JOHNSON TRANSPORT COMPANY 1 105
In considering the Petitioner's contention, it is to be noted
that we are not called upon, nor do we, pass upon the validity
of the contract insofar as it might involve unfair labor prac-
tices. The narrow issue before us is whether the contract is
now so defective, because of Local 29's lack of compliance
at the time the contract was originally made, as to deny
application of the Board's rule of permitting existing con-
tracts to bar a present determination of representatives. This
rule, self-imposed and discretionary in application, was
designed to stabilize for reasonable periods of time esth.b-
lished collective-bargaining relationships. In the exercise of
its discretion, the Board has refused to apply its bar rule to
contracts which are unlawful.' However, the Board has rec-
ognized the principle that certain original defects in union-
security contracts ' may be cured for contract bar purposes
by timely subsequent action.' We perceive no cogent reason
for holding that under any and all circumstances a union's
noncompliance at the time its union-security agreement is
made, creates such a defect in the bargaining agreement that
for contract-bar purposes it is incapable of being cured by
subsequent compliance. Under the circumstances of this case,
we are satisfied that it would effectuate the policies of the
Act to hold the existing contract between the Employer and
Local 29 to be a bar to the petition herein. Accordingly, we
shall dismiss the petition.
IThe Board dismissed the petition.]
Member Rodgers took no part in the consideration of the
above Decision and Order.
2 C. Hager & Sons Hinge Manufacturing Co., 80 NLRB 163.
3 See Polk Brothers Central Appliance and Furniture Co., 105 NLRB 251.
JOHNSON TRANSPORT COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WARE-
HOUSEMEN & HELPERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL UNIONS
NO. 47, 657, 745, 565, AND 583, AFL, Petitioner. Case No.
16-RC-1252. September 10, 1953
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER
Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election' issued
by the Board on June 4, 1953, an election by secret ballot was
conducted under the direction and supervision of the Regional
Director for the Sixteenth Region among the employees in the
1Not reported in printed volumes of Board Decisions.
106 NLRB No. 175.