Coro, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 24, 1953

105 N.L.R.B. 718 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

718 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Swanson had extensively circulated the petition during working hours in contravention of
Respondent's posted rule. In this state of facts Spencer immediately, and without prior
consultation with any of the Union's representatives and without any request from them,
discharged Koenig as he had Swanson.
It having been found, contrary to the allegations of the complaint, that the Union did not
request the discharge of the two men, it remains only to consider the other contention that
Respondent discharged Koenig and Swanson because they engaged in concerted activities.
These concerted activities, although they are not specifically so termed, were obviously
concerted activities "for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or pro-
tection," to employ the language of the Act. The question remains, however, whether they
were protected concerted activities. The situation here is no different in principle from the
more usual one where employees distribute a petition with the object of obtaining union
representation or facilitating union organization. The Board has held in cases too numerous
for citation that where such activity is in contravention of a valid employer rule the employer
may discharge such employees providing that the motivating reason is, in fact, the violation
of the rule and not the concerted activities themselves. In deciding this latter question it is
usually helpful in establishing discrimination to show that the employees in question were
treated differently from employees who had previously violated the rule. There is in this
record, however, no evidence whatever of any previous Infraction and hence of any discharge
because of such infraction. It cannot be found, therefore, that Respondent treated Swanson and
Koenig disparately, or that it would not have discharged Koenig and Swanson had the nature
of the petition not been related to their mutual aid or protection. In this state of the record I
must, and do, conclude that the General Counsel has not met the burden of proof incumbent
upon him. The presumption remains that Respondent acted legally rather than illegally.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Western Foundry Company is, and at all times relevant herein was, engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
2. United Steel Workers of America, Local 2674, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial
Organizations, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
3. Respondent has not engaged in any unfair labor practices within the meaning of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
CORO, INC., and CORO, INC. OF RHODE ISLAND and LOCAL
251, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS,
CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF
AMERICA, AFL, Petitioner. Case No. 1-RC-3189. June 24,
1953
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Joseph Lepie,
hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the
hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby af-
firmed.
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 Houston, Murdock, and
Styles] .
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the mean-
ing of the Act.
2. Local 251, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, AFL, is
105 NLRB No. 110.
CORO, INC. 719
a labor organization claiming to represent employees of the
Employer.
3. International Jewelry Workers' Union , AFL, is a party
to a collective -bargaining agreement with the Employer. Al-
though its Local 18, the bargaining representative at the Em-
ployer ' s plant, was served with notice of hearing , neither the
International nor Local 18 appeared at the hearing . The Inter-
national now asserts that it was not served with notice of hear-
ing and requests leave to participate in this proceeding. We
find that service on Local 18 was sufficient notice to the Inter-
national with which the Local is affiliated . Although the Board
customarily applies a liberal rule with regard to participation
in the hearing of all parties affected , in view of our decision
herein, we find it unnecessary to pass upon the International's
request for a new opportunity to participate.
The Employer contends that its current contract with Inter-
national Jewelry Workers' Union constitutes a bar to this
proceeding . The Petitioner opposes this contention on the
ground that the contract contains an illegal union-security
clause.
In 1949 the Employer and the Jewelry Workers concluded a
3-year agreement containing union-security provisions which
became effective after a union - security authorization election
in December 1949. These provisions required all new employ-
ees to become members of the Union within 30 days of their
employment but required only the maintenance of union
membership for those old employees already members of the
Union.
The current contract between the Employer and the Jewelry
Workers was made effective immediately upon the expiration
of the 1949 contract on April 1 , 1952. This contract contains
the following provisions relating to union security:
10. All present employees shall maintain their member-
ship in the Union during the life of this agreement as a
condition of continued employment . ( Emphasis added.)
12. All part- time employees shall, as a condition of
continued employment , secure a working permit from the
Union at the expiration of thirty ( 30) calendar days from
the date of employment , and shall continue to secure
working permits at thirty ( 30) day intervals while so
employed. . . .
The Petitioner contends that these provisions are invalid
because ( 1) paragraph 10 requires employees who were forced
to become union members under an illegal union-security
clause in the 1949 contract to retain that membership during
the life of the 1952 contract , ( 2) paragraph 10 also requires
employees who were not union members, under the mainte-
nance-of -membership provisions of the 1949 contract, to be-
720 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
come members forthwith , thereby denying them the 30-day
grace period required by Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act, and (3)
paragraph 12, by requiring part-time employees to secure
work permits at 30-day intervals , exceeds the limits set by
Section 8 ( a) (3) of the Act on union-security provisions.
We find these contentions without merit . The Petitioner
first contends that the union - security provisions of the 1949
agreement were illegal . These provisions , which were de-
ferred until a UA election could be held , provided that employ-
ees who were members of the Union ''at the time this Agree-
ment takes effect" maintain their membership . The Petitioner
construes this provision as retroactive in effect . We believe
that the time referred to in the above - quoted phrase is the
time the union - security provisions , rather than the entire
agreement , went into effect , and accordingly we find that the
application of the union - security provisions was properly
deferred . With respect to the Petitioner ' s second contention,
it is true that paragraph 10 of the current contract could be
construed to mean that "all present employees " are required
to be or become union members upon the effective date of the
contract , thereby denying nonmembers a 30-day period within
which to join the Union . However, the provision is rendered
ambiguous by the apparently inconsistent expression, "shall
maintain their membership ( emphasis added)," which would
indicate that only members of the Union on the effective date
of the contract are required to remain members of the Union
during the life of the agreement . We shall, therefore , examine
the circumstances surrounding the adoption and enforcement
of this provision to clarify its meaning .' To the extent that
Lever Brothers Companyz may be construed as inconsistent
with this decision , it is hereby overruled . The only evidence
introduced at the hearing concerning this provision indicates
that the parties intended the provision to require continued
union membership only of those employees already union
members on the effective day of the contract. As thus con-
strued, we find the provision to be entirely within the limita-
tion of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. 3
Nor do we believe that the requirement of paragraph 12
that part-time employees secure working permits from the
Union at 30 - day intervals exceeds the limitations contained
in Section 8 (a) (3). On its face,, the clause is entirely anala-
gous to the obviously permissible requirement that part-time
employees pay monthly union dues . Accordingly , we find that
the current contract is valid and constitutes a bar to a present
determination of representatives and we shall dismiss the
petition.
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
'Bath Iron Works Corporation , 101 NLRB 849 ; Griswold Textile Print, Inc ., 101 NLRB 1364.
2 97 NLRB 1240.
3 Charles A . Krause Milling Co., 97 NLRB 536.
4 Kennecott Copper Corporation , 98 NLRB 73