Irving Feller d/b/a Sport Girl Co. and/or Annex Sportswear

National Labor Relations Board - Unpublished Board Decisions

Jul 6, 1950

02-RC-001743 (N.L.R.B. Jul. 6, 1950)

STANDARD 26 LRRM 1284 SPORT, GIRL CO
[Text] "The Intervenor [International
Association of Bridge, Structural & Orna-
mental Iron Workers, Local 509 (AFL) ]
urges a current contract between it and
the Employer as a bar to this proceeding.
The Petitioner contends that no bar ex-
ists as (1) the agreement contains a
union-shop provision which is illegal un-
der the Labor Management Relations Act
of 1947, and (2) the Petitioner made a
timely claim for recognition.
"As to the first contention, the contract
provides for union security in various
contingencies depending on both State
and Federal Law. The contract is inar-
tistically drafted and somewhat ambigu-
ous. However, reading its provisions in
their entirety and considering the un-
contradicted testimony of the Intervenor's
representative as to their meaning (See
O. B. Andrews, 86 NLRB No. 11 [24 LRRM
1588]). We believe that it was the mutual
intent of the parties to require union
membership as a condition of employ-
ment only to the extent permited in Sec-
tion 8 (a) (3) of the Act, and only if and
when the Intervenor shall be duly author-
ized to make such an agreement in a
union-shop election conducted under Sec-
tion 9 (e) of the Act. Construing the
contract in accordance with the intent of
the parties, we find that the union-shop
features of the agreement do not render
it inoperative as a bar (Barium Steel and
Forge, Inc., 88 NLRB No. 104 [25 LRRM
1355]; Wyckoff Steel Company, 86 NLRB
No. 152 [25 LRRM 1062]).
"As to the second contention, on Janu-
ary 21, 1950, the Petitioner sent a letter
requesting recognition, dated January. 23,
and addressed to 'Mr. J. M. Caldwell,
Secretary-Treasurer of Snyder Engineer-
ing Corporation' at the Employer's busi-
ness address. The letter was delivered to
the Employer's business office. However.
as Mr. Caldwell, the addressee, was no
longer associated with the company, the
letter was marked 'moved' and returned
unopened to the post office from which
it was returned to the sender. On Janu-
ary 24, the contract was executed by the
Employer and the Intervenor. On Janu-
ary 25, the petition was filed. On January
26, the Petitioner sent a second `letter
addressed to Mr. Lewis L. Snyder, owner,
at the Employer's address. The Employer
received this letter and denied the request
for recognition. We find that the Em-
ployer did not have sufficient notice of the
Petitioner's claim before the contract was
executed, as the Petitioner's first letter'
was specifically addressed to an individ-
ual,-and the contents of the letter were not
actually known to any agent of the Em-
ployer until a later date. (The Carborun-
dum Company, 78 NLRB 91 [22 LRRM
1173]; cf. Belle-Moc, Inc., 81 NLRB 6 [23
LRRM 1293].)"
Representation petition dismissed.
(Panel of HOUSTON, REYNOLDS, and
MURDOCK, Members.)
SPORT GIRL CO.—
Decision of NLRB
In re IRVING FELLER, doing business
' as SPORT GIRL- CO. and/or ANNXIK
SPORTSWEAR, 'Lwc. , [Newr York, N. .Y:l•
and SNOW SUIT; SKIWEAR, LEGGIN
AND INFANTS' NOT.-ELTY WEAR , WORK-
ERS' UNION, LOCAL 105, affiliated
with INTERNATIONAL LADIES GARMENT
WORKERS' UNION (AFL). Case NO.
2-RC,1743, July.-0,' 1950. (90 -NLRB-
No. 133)
PROCEDURE [Sec. 9(c)]
—Regularity and legality of existing.
contract is presumed for purpose of
representation proceeding in which
contract is raised is bar to petition
by rival union ??.. 61.595 •
—Evidence on question whether con-
tracting union was majority 'repre-
sentative of employees at time it exe-
cuted contract is not - admissible'-
representation proceeding t*•61.642 • •
—Testimony by signatories to collec-
tive bargaining contract that contract
was executed prior to filing of . repre-
sentation petition by petitioning
and' evidence that ernploYeeS were.
aware of contract and that contract
-was, being generally enforced prior ;to
filing date -of petition sufficient to'
establish existence of' contract as a
bar to. new determination of represen,
tatives P." 61.602
The petitioner Seeks a 'unit of ,all
production employees. - The intervenor;
Washable Clothing Sportswear and
Novelty Workers t'Union, Local 169,
affiliated with Amalgamated Clothing
Worlers of America (CIO), and,the
employer contend that a '.contact
executed on June 15, 1949, for a two-
year period constitutes ,a , bar. to the
petition. The petitioner tontendS that
the: June 15 contract is riot a bar: be-
cause at the time it was 'entered into
the intervenor' did - not represent a,
majority of the ernpthyees 'and bec-ause
the contract was not executed until
after the filing of the Petition.
. [Text] , "We find no merit in either of
the Petitioner's contentions. With'respect
to the allegation that the Intervenor did
not, on the date when the 'contract Was
executed, represent a majority- of' the em-
ployees in the unit, it is the practice of
the Board in representation cases, at least
so far as the question of a bar to a pro-
ceeding is concerned, to presume the
legality of a collective- agreement ,and ,t9
refuse to adn-
whether at t
executed a ME
ered by such
contracting in
resentative (
pany, '72 NLR
in [19 LRRM
legality of ti
the majority
concerned, m:
pose of this
"In suppor
contract was
after the pet
produced se;
that althoua
agent had in
June 15, he s
to them, • am
the contract
ported for N
strike, for rec
had called o
also. relies o
to the Inters
in which Fe
venor to ta'
refers to VII
the June 15
"Against t
tains the t€
the contrac
exeouted on
ified in the
ord containr
employees
aware of ti
union meet
September,
1949, contr
the record
October 19.
under the I
generally e
Represel
(Panel c
TON and
to: locates related rulings in Cumulative Digest and monthly Classification Guide
26 Labor Relations Reference Manual
locates
STANDARD GENERATOR-SERVICE CO. OF MO., INC. 26 LRRM 1285
refuse to admit evidence on the question
whether at the time the contract was
executed a majority of the employees cov-
ered by such contract had designated the
contracting union as their bargaining rep-
resentative (Electro Metallurgical Com-
pany, 72 NLRB 1396 and cases cited there--
in [19 LRRM 1291].) The regularity and
legality of the 1949 contract, insofar as
the majority representation question is
concerned, must be presumed for the pur-
pose of this proceeding.
"In support of its contention that the
contract was not, in fact, executed until
after the petition was filed, the Petitioner
produced several witnesses who testified
that although the Intervenor's business
agent had made visits to the plant after
June 15, he never mentioned any contract
to them, and that they did not learn of
the contract's existence until they re-
ported for work at the conclusion of a
strike for recognition which the Petitioner
had called on October 24. The Petitioner
also relies on two letters sent by Feller
to the Intervenor during the strike period,
in which Feller, in requesting the Inter-
venor to take action against the strike,
refers to the 1947 agreement rather than
the June 15, 1949, contract.
"Against this, however, the record con-
tains the testimony of all signatories to
the contract, who stated that it was
executed on June 15, 1949, the date spec-
ified in the contract. In addition the rec-
ord contains the testimony of a number of
employees who stated that they were
aware of the contract in June and that
union meetings were held in July and
September, at which time the June 15,
1949, contract was discussed. Moreover
the record shows that in the period before
October 1949, grievances were processed
under the contract and the contract was
generally enforced."
Representation petition dismissed.
(Panel of HERZOG, Chairman, Hous-
TON and STYLES, Members.)
STANDARD GENERATOR
SERVICE CO. OF MO., INC.—
Decision of NLRB
In re STANDARD GENERATOR SERVICE COM-
PANY OF MISSOURI, INC. [St. Louis,
Mo.] and UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIR-
CRAFT AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT
WORKERS OF AMERICA (CIO). Case
No. 14-CA-201, July 7, 1950 (90 NLRB
No. 131) . .
Glenn L. Moller, for. the General
CounseI;, C. Willard Max; Clayton,
Mo., for respondent; Walter C. Shye,
St. Louis, Mo., for the union; Trial
Examiner' David London.
REFUSAL TO BARGAIN [Sec. 8(a)
(5)1
—Employer refused to bargain in
violation of amended NLRA by the
following conduct which, in its total-
ity, evidenced _employer's bad faith in
negotiations: " (1) Unilateral an-
nouncement of wage decrease on day
after NLRB _election; (2) insistence
on contract clauses requiring union
officials to' make certain broad politi-
cal -and economic pledges; (3) insist-
ence that union post a bond to guar-
antee its contract performance; (4)
failure to invest sufficient authority in
its sole negetiator; (5) repudiation of
retroactive wage formula agreed to in
prior negotiations; and (6) condition-
ing of proposed wage increase on un-
ion's withdrawal of unfair labor prac-
tice charges P. 54.673 Y. 54.451 i* 54.-
453 IA. 54.253 11,- 54.521 00 54.458 •
—In absence of evidence that em-
ployer adamantly insisted on -right to
revise wages unilaterally, employer's
proposal, made during protracted
negotiations, to reserve to itself _the
right unilaterally to revise wages, did
not constitute evidence of bad faith in
bargaining 54.671
—Unilateral wage increase given to
employee during protracted negotia-
tions with union was not evidence of
bad faith in bargaining where record
shows that employer granted such in-
crease as compensation for part-time
services as supervisor 54.671
The union won a representation
election on January 12, 1949. On the
following day, the employer an-
nounced a wage reduction of five
cents an hour, effective February 16.
After its certification on February
9. 1949, the union submitted written
P locates related rulings in Cumulative Digest and monthly Classification Guide
Decisions of NLRB and State Boards