Griswold Textile Print, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 24, 1952

101 N.L.R.B. 1364 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

1364 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Setting this ele°^ion aside seems to me to demonstrate the error of
applying so mechanistic a test. Here the Union, during the hours
immediately preceding the election, addressed the employees by sound-
truck under circumstances which I believe permitted most of them to
hear its arguments while eating lunch outdoors on the Employer's
premises. The Employer thereupon called a noncompulsory meeting
during the brief period of working time that remained between the
`lunch hour and the opening of the polls. The Regional Director
found that the Employer's last-minute address consisted " in the main"
of arguments which merely rebutted those just offered by the Union
during the sound-truck episode. Although the Employer had previ-
ously declined to invite the Union to share any possible future platform
on its premises, there is no showing that it actually planned to make
any last-minute address at all until after it learned that the Union
had just told its story to the employees by means of the sound-truck.
According to the Regional Director, the earlier meetings on company
premises, which are alluded to in the majority opinion, had either
been waived as a basis for possible objections to the election, or were
likewise conducted "to rebut statements which had been made to the
employees by the Petitioner." I find it difficult to believe, taking all
these facts together, that this employer acted so wrongfully by taking
advantage of the control of its own property that the Board should
conclude that, under the existing statute, there was unlawful inter-
ference with these employees' free choice.
GRISwoLD TEXTILE PRINT, INC., and JOSEPH RoIREw, PETITIONER, and
TEXTILE WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, CIO. Case Xo. 1-RD-122.
December 24,1952
Decision and Order
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Robert E. Greene,
hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are
free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
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-mem-
ber panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Styles and Peterson].
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 Petitioner asserts that the Union is no longer the bargaining
representative of the employees of the Employer as defined in Section
9 (a) of the Act.
101 NLRB No. 205.
GRISWALD TEXTILE PRINT, INC. 1365
The Union, a labor organization affiliated with the Congress of
Industrial Organizations, is currently recognized by the Employer
as the exclusive bargaining representative of the employees designated
in the petition.
3. The Union contends that its contract with the Employer, exe-
cuted on May 15, 1952, covering the employees here involved, is a bar
to the petition for decertification. The Petitioner contends that the
contract contains an illegal union-security clause and, therefore, can-
not be a bar to this proceeding.
The contract between the Union and the Employer covers the period
from the date of execution until September 30, 1953, with automatic
renewal from year to year thereafter in the absence of notice to termi-
nate 60 days in advance of the terminal date. It contains the following
union-security provision :
The Employer agrees to employ and keep in its employment in
the bargaining unit above described none other than members
in good standing of the Union, and its respective local unions.
The Employer shall have the right to hire new employees in the
open market and such new employees shall be consider'd to be
on probation for a period of thirty (30) days from the first
date of employment. During the probationary period, the Em-
ployer shall have the right to dismiss any new employee whose
work does not, in the opinion of the Employer, meet the require-
ments of the job assigned.
All newly hired employees shall be required to become members
of the Union after thirty (30) days of employment and shall also
be required to sign an authorization card directing the Employer
to deduct their initiation fees and dues in the Union and to pay the
same over to the Union.
The first paragraph of the clause quoted above may be construed to
apply only to new employees hired after the effective date of the
contract or may be construed to apply to all employees of the Em-
ployer. The. meaning of the clause is, therefore, ambiguous, and it
becomes necessary to look to the practice of the parties in admin-
istering the contract.' The record shows that all employees of the
Employer in the unit involved in the instant petition were laid off for
It period of 4 months preceding the execution of the contract and that
upon returning to work after the execution of the contract they were
accorded a 30-day grace period within which to join the Union.2 Ac-
' Bath Iron Works Corporation , 101 NLRB 849, Cf . Hess , Goldsmith & Co., Inc., 101
NLRB 1009 , where the Board found that the clause was not ambiguous.
2 After the hearing the Union moved to reopen the record for the purpose of adducing
evidence to the effect that (1 ) on the date of execution of the 1952 contract the Employer
"had approximately 15 employees in its employ " within the contract unit , and (2) all
these employees were members in good standing of the Union . As this evidence would
not affect our holding that the contract is a bar , we will deny the motion
1366 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
cordingly, we find that the contract construed in the light of the
practice of the parties did not require any old employees to join
the Union without a 30-day grace period . So viewed , the union-
security clause is valid and the contract constitutes a bar to the petition
is the instant case.3 For this reason, we find that no question affecting
commerce exists concerning the representation of employees of the
Employer within the meaning of the Act.
Order
IT Is HEREBY ORDERED that the petition filed herein be, and it hereby
is, dismissed.
d Charles A. Krause Milling Co., 97 NLRB 536.
SULLIVAN MINING COMPANY (ELECTROLYTIC ZINC PLANT), SUNSHINE
MINING COMPANY, LUCKY FRIDAY SILVER-LEAD MINES COMPANY,
FEDERAL MINING AND SMELTING COMPANY (MORNING MINE),
BUNKER HILL AND SULLIVAN MINING AND CONCENTRATING COM-
PANY, NABOB SILVER-LEAD COMPANY and MUCKERS , MINERS AND
SMELTERMEN'S UNION, LOCAL INDUSTRIAL UNION #1792, CIO,
PETITIONER
BUNKER HILL AND SULLIVAN MINING AND CONCENTRATING COMPANY,
SULLIVAN MINING COMPANY (ELECTROLYTIC ZINC PLANT), SUN-
SHINE MINING COMPANY, FEDERAL MINING AND SMELTING COM-
PANY, AMERICAN SMELTING AND REFINING COMPANY, DAY MINES,
INC., COEUR D'ALENE MINES CORPORATION, SPOKANE-IDAHO MIN-
ING COMPANY, SUNSET MINERALS, INC., JOHN GEORGE LEASE, GOL-
CONDA LEAD MINES , HULL LEASE , GOLD HUNTER MINES, INC.,
SIDNEY MINING COMPANY , HIGHLAND - SURPRISE CONSOLIDATED
MINING COMPANY, MASCOT MINES., INC.,' NABOB SILVER-LEAD
COMPANY, SUNSET LEASE, HECLA MINING COMPANY, ZANETTI MIN-
ING AND MILLING COMPANY, SILVER DOLLAR MINING COMPANY,
DREDGE FUND and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS,
AFL, and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BRIDGE, STRUCTURAL,
ORNAMENTAL AND REINFORCED STEEL WORKERS UNION, LOCAL #14,
AFL and BROTHERHOOD OF PAINTERS, DECORATORS AND PAPER-
HANGERS OF AMERICA, AFL and INTERNATIONAL UNION OF MINE,
MILL & SMELTER WORKERS, INDEPENDENT, AND LOCAL 18, INTER-
NATIONAL UNION OF MINE, MILL AND SMELTER WORKERS, INDEPEND-
ENT and INTERNATIONAL HOD CARRIERS, BUILDING AND COMMON
1 The name of this Employer , formerly the Denver Development Company, appears as
.corrected at the hearing.
101 NLRB No. 201.