Cole National Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 16, 1969

175 N.L.R.B. 1059 (N.L.R.B. 1969)

GATE CITY OPTICAL CO.
Gate City Optical Company , a Division of Cole
National Corporation and Warehousemen, Mail
Order , Ice, Cold Storage , Soft Drink, Waste
Paper , Distribution Workers, Egg Breakers,
Candlers, Miscellaneous Drivers & Helpers,
Affiliate of International Brotherhood of
Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
Helpers of America , Local 838 , Petitioner. Case
17-RC-5749
May 16, 1969
DECISION ON REVIEW AND ORDER
By CHAIRMAN MCCULLOUGH AND MEMBERS
BROWN, JENKINS,. AND ZAGORIA
On June 13, 1968, the Acting Regional Director
for Region 17 issued a Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding in which he found that the contract
between the Employer and United Optical Workers
Union No. 878, affiliated with the International
Union of Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers,
AFL-CIO, hereinafter called the Optical Workers, is
not a bar to the petition, and he accordingly
directed an immediate election. Thereafter, the
Employer in accordance with Section 102.67 of the
National Labor Relations Board Rules and
Regulations, Series 8, as amended, filed with the
National Labor Relations Board a timely request
for review of the Acting Regional Director's
Decision, contending that he erred in finding that
the contract was not a bar to the petition.
The Board by telegraphic Order' dated September
4, 1968, granted the Employer's request for review.
Thereafter, Petitioner filed a brief on review.
The Board has considered the entire record in the
case with respect to the issues under review and
makes the following findings:
The Petitioner seeks to represent a unit of
production employees at the Employer's Kansas
City, Missouri, plant. The Employer contends that
its contract with the Optical Workers executed
January 12, 1968, is a bar to the petition. The
Acting Regional Director found that since the
parties agreed that Optical Workers has become
defunct and since Petitioner has not agreed in
writing to assume Optical Workers contract, that
contract is not a bar. In requesting review, the
Employer essentially argues that since Optical
Workers and Petitioner are in effect one and the
same , the contract executed by Optical Workers
should stand as a bar to an election. We agree.
The Employer is engaged in the manufacture,
fabrication, and assembly of optical prescriptions.
For many years Optical Workers had represented its
production employees and a separate unit of the
stockroom employees which is not involved herein.
The contract covering the production employees
which is urged as a bar to the petition was executed
on January 12, 1968, to be effective from January 1,
1968 to December 31, 1970.
1059
The record indicates that a number of employees
in the unit , who, according to several witnesses at
the hearing , were dissatisfied with the representation
by Optical Workers and with the terms of the new
agreement , contacted Petitioner in January 1968 and
requested it to represent them . Thereafter,
Petitioner , on January 16, 1968 , filed a petition in
Case 17-RC-5652 seeking to represent the
Employer ' s employees . The Regional Director,
however , on January 26, 1968 , administratively
dismissed the petition on the ground that the
contract was executed on January 12, 1968 , prior to
the date that the petition was filed.
Subsequent to the dismissal of the petition in
Case 17-RC-5652, the members of Optical Workers,
which included employees of, other employers
besides the Employer herein , took action to disband
Optical - Workers and affiliate with Petitioner and its
sister Local No. 688 . Thus, the record indicates that
the Optical Workers was "disbanded, dissolved and
disestablished" on April 14, 1968. This action was
reflected in a resolution which was placed in
evidence at the hearing without objection by any
party. The resolution further recites that the
dissolution proceeding took place at a duly called
regular meeting of the members of Optical Workers
and that the affiliation of Optical Workers with the
International Union of Electrical , Radio and
Machine Workers , AFL-CIO, was "revoked,
discontinued and disavowed" by the unanimous vote
of those present . In the same resolution, the
members of the Optical Workers voted to seek
membership immediately in Teamster 's Local Union
No. 688 , affiliated with International Brotherhood
of Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and
Helpers of America.
Although Petitioner itself (Teamsters Local 838)
is not mentioned in the resolution , the effect of the
resolution upon Petitioner was explained in a letter
on the stationery of Teamsters Local Union No.
688, addressed to the Regional Director and signed
by "Thomas E. Andert, President and Director."'
This letter, which was also received in evidence at
the hearing , states that the meaning of the
"affiliation" provision of the resolution was that
former members of Optical Workers would join the
appropriate local of the Teamsters . For members in
St. Louis , the letter explained , the appropriate local
would be the one mentioned in the resolution, i.e.,
Local No. 688, and for members in Kansas City,
where the Employer is located , the appropriate local
would be Teamsters Local No. 838, the Petitioner
herein.
A letter on the stationery of District 11,
International Union of Electrical , Radio & Machine
Workers , AFL-CIO, addressed to the Regional
Office and signed by Orville Munzer, Field
Representative, was also received in evidence at the
'Apparently the same Thomas E Andert , who the record elsewhere
indicates had 'formerly been the President and Director of Optical
Workers
175 NLRB No. 172
1060 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
hearing and advises that Optical Workers is defunct?
After the foregoing evidence was received at the
hearing the parties stipulated that Optical Workers
is defunct. Having admitted the defunctness of
Optical Workers, the Employer stated on the record
that it is willing to recognize Petitioner as the
representative of its production employees but only
on the condition that Petitioner assume the Optical
Workers contract of January 12, 1968. The
Employer has already recognized Petitioner in a unit
of the Employer's stockroom employees, and
Petitioner has assumed the former Optical Workers
contract covering that unit.
Based on all the evidence and the parties'
stipulation, the Acting Regional Director found that
Optical Workers is defunct and he, accordingly,
concluded that its contract with the Employer, dated
January 12, 1968, is not a bar to the petition. In
support of this determination the Acting Regional
Director primarily relied upon the holding in
Hershey Chocolate Corporation, 121 NLRB 901,
911, that a collective-bargaining agreement between
a defunct labor organization and an employer will
not bar an election petition.
We find, contrary to the Acting Regional
Director, that the Hershey "defunctness" rule is
inapplicable in the circumstances of this case. For
Optical Workers is not defunct in the normal sense.
That is, while it ceased to exist as an affiliate of
International Union of Electrical, Radio and
Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, as the result of the
action of its membership on April 14, 1968, that
same membership, as a body, simultaneously took
action to, and did, affiliate with Petitioner and its
sister local.'
Viewing this matter realistically Optical Workers
has, as the result of the action of its membership,"
'Optical Workers did not appear at the hearing.
'In its brief on review Petitioner contends that the action of April 14,
1968, by the Optical Workers membership should not be considered
binding on the employees in the production unit here involved for the
reason that there is no evidence in the record that any of these employees
were present at the meeting at which such action took place. Our
dissenting colleague finds merit in this contention. We, however, reject it.
The resolution describing that action was received in evidence without
objection by Petitioner or any party and recites that the action took place
"at a regular meeting duly called " and that said action resulted from the
unanimous determination of the members present . Petitioner presented no
evidence at the hearing - nor does it now proffer any - that the action
was other than fair and regular or that it was not binding upon all
members including those employed by the Employer . And, according to
the record , virtually all the employees of the Employer were required to be
members of Optical Workers . In these circumstances we find that the
action was binding on the Employer 's production employees . The Board, in
any event , does not normally concern itself with determining whether a
membership meeting was held in strict conformity with a union's
constitution and bylaws absent a clear showing, not present here, of
substantial irregularity . See Waterway Terminals Corporation , 120 NLRB
1788.
'Our dissenting colleague feels that a substantial change in identity has
occurred despite the action of April 14, 1968, and related factors.
However, we observe that even he notes in support of his other arguments
that Andert is the president of Petitioner 's sister local and that Petitioner
become merged with Petitioner and its sister local in
circumstances which do not raise a question
concerning representation; nor does any party claim
the facts raise any substantial question as to the
identity of the collective-bargaining representative of
the Employer's production employees.' Stated
another way, Petitioner occupies the Optical
Workers' status as the bargaining agent for the
production employees on the same basis that it has
succeeded in fact, as the parties agree, to Optical
Workers status as the collective-bargaining
representative of the Employer's composing room
employees. In view of this circumstance there can be
no question that Petitioner is entitled, as the
Employer proposes, to be lawfully recognized as
bargaining representative in this unit and to
administer the Optical Workers contract of January
12, 1968.° Accordingly, we do not believe that it
would effectuate the policies of the act to conduct
an election.
On the contrary, an election at this time would
only tend to disrupt conditions already stablized by
the existing contract. For it is the avowed purpose
of the employees, as testified at the hearing, to
cause Petitioner, if successful in an election, to use
its resultant certification as a vehicle to terminate
the existing contract and to bargain for an entirely
new agreement. To permit such a result in
circumstances such as are here present would exalt
the form of Optical Workers "defunctness" over the
reality of the continued substatl'tial identity of the
collective-bargaining representative and would be
plainly at odds with the statutory policy of
promoting stability in labor relations. And it could
only serve to encourage employees disgruntled with
the terms of their existing contract and desirous of
obtaining a more favorable one, to seek escape from
lawful contractual commitments by the device of
filing a certification petition to the Board. The
Hershey Chocolate Company "defunctness" rule, we
hold, was not designed to be, and is not to be
construed as being, applicable to situations where,
as here, the mere formal "defunctness" of an
incumbent is created as a strategem' to achieve an
end inimical to policies of the Act."
has assumed Optical Workers contract in the Employer 's composing room
unit without an election.
'See Charles Beck Machine Corporation, 107 NLRB 874, and cases
there cited . See also C. A. Olsen Manufacturing Company, 118 NLRB
362, fn. 2; Waterway Terminals Corporation, supra . Pepsi-Cola Bottling
Co. of Chattanooga, Inc., 132 NLRB 1441, cited by the Acting Regional
Director, is distinguishable , for in Pepsi-Cola, there was no attempt to use
the petition as a stratagem to achieve an end inimical to policies of the
Act.
'See Charles Beck Machine Corporation. supra at 876.
'See News Press Publishing Co., 145 NLRB 803.
The Board has been vigilant in other analogous situations in guarding_
against having its normal rules abused for the purpose of evading
legitimate contractual obligations . Thus the Board precludes a union or an
employer which is party to a contract from relying on the Board 's normal
contract -bar duration rule (now 3 years) to escape from its obligations
under a contract of longer duration through the device of filing a
certification petition with the Board . See, e.g., Montgomery Ward & Co.,
Incorporated, 137 NLRB 346; Absorbent Cotton Co., 137 NLRB 908.
GATE CITY OPTICAL CO. 1061
In reaching a contrary conclusion our dissenting
colleague emphasizes certain evidence indicating that
it was the practice of the parties to require
employees ratification of prior contracts and that
the Employer was warned not to sign the instant
contract unless it was so ratified. We need not recite
the countervailing evidence on this point, for it
suffices to state that under settled doctrine of this
Board, the whole line of parol evidence on this point
is immaterial and irrelevant to the issue here
involved. Thus, in the Appalachian Shale case,'
which codified contract bar principles in this regard,
the Board held that evidence of prior ratification is
only material where the contract by its express
terms makes such ratifications a condition precedent
to its validity. Here, it is conceded that the contract
contained no such provision.
Our dissenting colleague also urges that
Petitioner, regardless of its assurance of voluntary
recognition by the Employer, is entitled to an
election and certification under the Board's General
Box'" rule which permits an already recognized
labor organization to obtain the benefits of
certification pursuant to Section 9 of the Act. The
short answer to this argument is that Petitioner does
not seek an election, for this purpose. If it does, it
may always take appropriate action to obtain such
relief."
In refusing to order an election herein we hold
that, given the circumstances of this case -
particularly the outstanding collective-bargaining
agreement of January 12, 1968; the vote by the
Employer's employees as a unit to obtain
representation by the Teamsters; the subsequent
voluntary and unified action of the former members
of Optical Workers in electing to transfer their
affiliation from the Optical Workers to the
appropriate local of the Teamsters, and the
reciprocal action of Petitioner and its sister local in
accepting such affiliation; and the Employer's
concession that the Petitioner enjoys majority status
- there is no question concerning representation to
be resolved by an election.':
'Appalachian Shale Products Co, 121 NLRB 1160, 1163
"General Box Company, 82 NLRB 678.
This is not the type of case wherein an incumbent labor organization's
purpose in filing its petition is to obtain those benefits which certification
offers but voluntary recognition does not . Compare Community
Publications.. Inc., 162 NLRB 855, and cases cited therein . This is rather a
case wherein Petitioner's purpose, as expressed by its witnesses several
times at the hearing , is to escape the contract dated January 12, 1968, even
though the latter agreement still has almost 2 years to run, and to require
the Employer to bargain with it for a new contract . But this the Petitioner
- which now stands in the shoes of the incumbent union - cannot do by
means of a Board election, Cf. Montgomery Ward & Co, Incorporated,
supra.
"Our dissenting colleague asks whether the Board is prepared to find
that Petitioner is legally obliged to assume Optical Workers contract and
bargain with the Employer for the production employees.
That question is not before us. All that we must decide is whether there
is a question concerning representation to be resolved by an election. We
have found that there is none. Both the Petitioner and the Employer agree
that the Petitioner now enjoys majority status.
Accordingly, we shall dismiss the petition.
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the petition filed herein
be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
MEMBER FANNING, dissenting:
The facts in this case are briefly as follows: For
many years these employees were represented by
United Optical Workers Union Local 878, IUE,
AFL-CIO, which also included among its members
employees employed by other employers in St.
Louis, Missouri, where Tom Andert, its president,
was stationed. On December 7, 1967, Company
officials met with a committee of employees, led by
William Yardley, Optical Workers' Kansas City
representative, to negotiate a new contract. At this
meeting the Company offered a 25-cent package to
be divided up over a 3-year period. Thereafter,
according to Company counsel Arnson, the
Company was informed by Yardley that the
employees had met and rejected this offer. Another
offer of 30 cents was also rejected by Yardley on
behalf of the employees. A third offer of 32 cents
was made to an attorney hired by Yardley to assist
in bargaining. At this point Tom Andert, who had
been in and out of the hospital, called the
Company's attorney and assumed personal
responsibility for negotiating the contract. He had
negotiated previous contracts and signed them for
Optical Workers Local 878. However, it is the
uncontradicted testimony of Francis Cox, one of the
employee members of Optical Workers' Kansas City
negotiating committee, that all contracts for the past
15 years had been approved by the employees before
signature by an authorized union official. Employee
Olwin Right further testified that he had stated to
Company official Welsh that Tom Andert had once
signed a contract without ratification by the
employees and added, "He had better not sign this
one." In his testimony Welsh conceded that he had
received information "possibly from Mr. Right"
that Andert had better not sign this contract. Right
indicated that the single occasion when Andert had
signed a contract without ratification occurred in
1933. In the face of this long established practice
and, with respect to the instant contract, specific
notice to the Company that ratification by the
employees would be required Andert and the
Company executed a new contract without such
ratification on January 12, 1968. In an unsworn
document dated January 31, 1968 and admitted into
evidence Andert asserts that he signed the contract
to avoid a strike at Gate City, alleges that he had
secured the approval of employee Cox for such
action, and concludes, "Again I offer no apologies
for my actions. I would do the same thing
again." Dissatisfied with Andert's conduct and
the manner in which he had represented them
over the years, the Gate City employees sought
membership in Teamsters Local 838, the Petitioner.
1062 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
As one employee • put it, "We didn't ask for this
contract like it is... and we still got it shoved ..."
On January 16, 1968, Petitioner filed a petition
seeking to represent these employees. That petition
was dismissed by the Regional Director on the
ground that the January 12 contract of Optical
Workers was a bar. An attorney hired by the
employees was unable to assist them in their effort
to repudiate the Optical Workers." Thereafter, for
reasons not apparent in this record, the Optical
Workers were duly called to a regular meeting on
April 14, 1968 and voted to disband and dissolve
and further resolved that the membership seek
membership in` Teamsters Local Union No. 688,
whose territorial jurisdiction included the St. Louis,
but not- the Kansas City area. It cannot reasonably
be inferred that this meeting was sought or called by
the Gate City employees to avoid the consequences
of the January 12 contract for it does not appear
from the record that any Gate City employee
attended this meeting or , indeed, that Gate City
employees were notified that such a meeting was to
be held. It may even be questioned whether they still
remained members in good standing of Optical
Workers in view of their failure to pay dues during
this entire period. Nevertheless, in an explanatory
letter to the Regional Director, Andert, now
President of Teamster Local No. 688, volunteered
the information that the Resolution of April 14 was
intended to ;channel Optical Workers' members into
different Teamsters Local Unions, including Local
688 in St. Louis and Local 838 in Kansas City. On
April 29 the Petitioner filed the instant petition,
supported by, an adequate showing of interest. All
parties at the hearing stipulated that United Optical
Workers Union Local No. 87.8 is defunct.
Despite the above. stipulation, the Employer has
taken the position that the Petitioner cannot
lawfully represent these employees unless it is
willing to assume the January 12 contract of the
defunct Optical, Workers. The Employer contends
that the Petitioner is the legal successor to the latter
union . The Petitioner argues, first, that it is not the
successor to the Optical Workers and, second, that
it is unwilling in' any event to adopt the January 12
contract because the employees are adamant in their
position that the contract was not authorized by
them and Was foisted on them by Andert. With
respect to "another contract, signed by Andert in
April 1967, covering a unit of stockroom employees,
the Petitioner has agreed to assume this contract in
view of the.,employees ' recognition of the legality of
this agreement.
On these facts the Acting Regional Director
directed , an, immediate election. He concluded that
the contract, of January 12 was not a bar for several
reasons . First, citing long established precedents, he
"The majority's reference in footnote 3 to the testimony of Right relates
to this unsuccessful attempt to repudiate the Optical Workers. No evidence
warrants the conclusion that the Gate City employees' unhappiness with
their contract led to the dissolution meeting of April 14.
held that a contract executed by a defunct union is
not a bar to a petition or an election sought by
another union. Second, he ruled that Petitioner was
not the successor to defunct Optical Workers. Third,
assuming such successorship, he concluded that
existing precedents with respect to employer
purchasers indicates that a successor is not
necessarily bound by a contract executed by its
predecessor.
I find the Acting Regional Director's opinion
most persuasive. The majority's contrary decision,
reversing his Direction of Election and dismissing
this petition, does not seem to me to be supportable
on this record. In the first place, at no time has the
Employer taken the position, as the majority asserts,
that the "Optical Workers and the Petitioner are in
effect one and the same." Clearly, the Employer's
position on the record is that the Petitioner is the
legal successor to the defunct Optical Workers and,
as such, bound to assume the latter's contract. The
Acting Regional Director rejected this argument and
the majority does not pass on it, holding, in the
alternative, that "Optical Workers has, as the result
of the action of its membership, become merged
with Petitioner and its sister local in circumstances
which do not raise a question concerning
representation . " But the record is perfectly
clear that the April 14 Resolution dissolved the
Optical Workers as an organization completely and
finally, with the additional resolve of the group that
they "seek membership" in Teamsters Local 688.
There is no evidence on this record from which it
can reasonably be concluded that the Optical
Workers transferred its affiliation from one
International Union to another. Nevertheless, the
majority insists, despite the stipulation of the
parties, that the Optical Workers is not defunct and,
indeed, has not even changed its identity to any
substantial extent. Relying upon a gratuitous letter
of Tom Andert, written after the April 14 meeting,
the majority accepts his bare statement that the
April 14 Resolution "means" that Teamsters Local
838 should be substituted for Teamsters Local 688
as a haven for members of defunct Optical Workers
in Kansas City. As indicated above, there is no
evidence that Gate City employees participated in,
or were aware of, the April 14 meeting. Nor is there
any evidence that Teamsters Local 838 was a party
to those events. The record does not otherwise
support the majority's statement that members of
Optical Workers "took action to disband Optical
Workers and affiliate with Petitioner and its sister
Local No. 688." If the majority is correct, Optical
Workers is not dead, but as a viable labor
organization lives on dichotomously in the recipient
bodies of Teamsters Local No. 688 and, by virtue of
Tom Andert's explanatory letter, Teamsters
Local No. 838. To the extent the decision
of this Board has the force of law, these
unions , without action or acquiescence
on their part, have become responsible
GATE CITY OPTICAL CO.
for the obligations and conduct of the defunct
Optical Workers and may be held, I assume, jointly
and severally on that account. Understandably, they
may be reluctant to be saddled with legal
responsibilities they never assumed and an identity
they never sought. There are • other grave
consequences. For instance, this Employer may file
charges against Local 838, alleging a violation of
Section 8(b)(3) in that it refuses to adopt or
administer the Optical Workers' contract in
accordance with the majority's instant decision.
Does not the majority's decision, dismissing this
petition on the ground that the January 12 contract
is a bar, mean that Teamsters Local 838, the
Petitioner, is, as a matter of law, the Optical
Workers under a different name? Is the Board
prepared to find that the Petitioner, with or without
an election, with or without valid evidence of
majority status, nevertheless is legally obliged to
assume this contract and bargain with this Employer
because of a letter written by the former president
of a defunct union urging these employees to seek
membership in the Petitioner?
The majority asserts that no question concerning
representation exists because the Petitioner occupies
the status of the Optical Workers" and "there can
be no question" (emphasis supplied) that Petitioner
is entitled to be recognized as the representative of
these employees. An important proviso is that the
Petitioner must agree to administer the contract
signed without the employees' approval by the
president of the Optical Workers on January 12,
1968. As indicated above, the record does not show
that the Optical Workers has merged, affiliated, or
been absorbed into the Petitioner. Indeed, apart
from the petition, there is no evidence as to how
many employees of this Employer have joined the
Petitioner or whether a majority of these employees
desire that the Petitioner represent them for the
purposes of collective bargaining. In these
circumstances I think there is a very real question
whether the Employer must recognize the Petitioner
without an election. Moreover, I find no basis in
this record to support the conclusion that these
employees have embarked upon a "strategem" to
avoid their lawful contractual obligations by
dissolving the Optical Workers or that they have
deliberately and consciously schemed to flout the
statutory policy of this Act. Rather, I am of the
opinion, as was the Regional Director, that the
filing of the instant Petition is entirely in accord
with long established Board precedent, sound labor
relations, and the clearest statutory policy.
Defending its refusal to permit these employees to
select or reject the Petitioner as their lawful
bargaining representative, the majority contends that
an election now would disrupt "conditions already
stabilized by the existing contract." Is it stability for
these employees to be totally unrepresented for 1
1/2 years? Is a contract signed under the conditions
which I have described above and as to which the
1063
majority declines to cite "countervailing evidence" a
stabilizing factor at this plant? Would it be unlawful
for this Petitioner to demand bargaining for an
entirely new agreement if it is successful in a Board
election? Is it proper for the Board to insist that this
Petitioner assume a representative status at this
plant only on condition that it agree to administer
the existing contract? For more than 16 years the
Board has held that an employer has a statutory
obligation to bargain with the newly selected
representative of its employees without regard to the
existence of a previous contract.15 For 19 years the
Board has held that a new bargaining representative
cannot be accorded conditional certification through
a requirement that it administer an existing
contract." In my opinion, by refusing to conduct an
election at this time, the majority, in effect, directs
the Petitioner and these employees to yield to a
principle long rejected by the Board."
The Board's traditional refusal to condition the
certification of a union is based in large part upon
the legislative history of the amended Act. A
requirement that a new union must adhere to the
terms of an unexpired contract was considered and
rejected by the framers of the amended Act. In
reporting to the House the House conferees
explained the deletion of such a provision as follows:
Under the House bill, in section 9(t)(8), it was
provided that if a new representative were chosen
while a collective bargaining agreement was in
effect with another representative, certification of
the new representative should not become
effective unless such new representative became a
party to such contract and agreed to be bound by
its terms for the remainder of the contract period.
Since the inclusion of such a provision might give
rise to an inference that the practice of the Board,
with respect to conducting representation elections
while collective contracts are in effect, should not
be continued, it is omitted from the conference
agreement.' S
"In a somewhat inconsistent finding the majority refers to the "mere
formal" defunctness of the Optical Workers . Whether formal defunctness
is to be accorded less weight than informal defunctness or whether there is
a distinction between these terms is a matter upon which I express no
opinion
"American Seating Company, 106 NLRB 250 at 255. In that case,
answering a contention of the Employer that a new union be certified to
bargain only after the expiration date of the existing contract, the Board
said " If the Respondent 's contention is sound, a certified bargaining
representative might be deprived of effective statutory power as to the
most important subjects of collective bargaining for an unlimited number
of years as the result of an agreement negotiated by an unwanted and
repudiated bargaining representative . There is no provision in the statute
for this kind of emasculated certified bargaining representative Moreover,
the rule urged by the Respondent seems hardly calculated to reduce
'industrial strife' by encouraging the 'practice and procedure of collective
bargaining' the declared purpose of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended "
"
"
Boston Machine Works, 89 NLRB 59.
Even if the Optical Workers is only formally defunct , as the majority
contends , but nevertheless lives on in the Petitioner , the latter is certainly
entitled to certification by the Board under well established and
unchallenged precedent General Box , 82 NLRB 678
"H Conf Rep. 510 on H R 3020 at 50
1064 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Obviously, Congress has indicated its desire that
terms of existing contracts, in accordance with
the Board continue to hold elections during the
established contract bar rules, but deemed it unwise
to direct the new union to administer such a
contract, a result which the majority seeks to
accomplish in this case.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, I must
dissent from the majority's decision to dismiss the
petition filed herein. I would affirm the Regional
Director's Decision and Direction of Election.