O. B. Andrews Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 21, 1949

86 N.L.R.B. 59 (N.L.R.B. 1949)

III the Matter of O. B. ANDREWS COMPANY, EMPLOYER and UNITED
PAPERWORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER
Case No. 10-RC-:535.-Decided September 01, 1949
DECISION
AND
ORDER
- Upon a petition duly filed,.a hearing in this matter was held before
John C. Carey, Jr., hearing officer of the National Labor Relations
Board. 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
National Labor Relations Act.
2. The Petitioner and the Intervenor, Chattanooga Paper Products
Workers' Specialty Union No. 394, affiliated with Printing Pressmen
and Assistants of North America, A. F. L., are labor organizations
claiming to represent employees of the Employer.
3. For reasons stated hereinafter, 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.
. The Employer and the Intervenor executed a contract dated April
10, 1948, covering the employees concerned herein. This contract was
automatically renewed on February 1, 1949, and constitutes a bar to
a present determination of representatives based on the petition filed
on March 1, 1949, unless the following sections thereof constitute
union-security provisions in the absence of authorization of the Inter-
venor under Section 9 (e) (1) of the Act.
Section I, subsections 1 and 2, of the contract reads as follows :
1. The company recognizes the Union as the sole collective bar-
gaining agency in respect to wages, hours and working condi-
tions for all production employees-in the Folding, Solid Fibre,
Corrugated, Wood Box Departments and Machine Shop, includ-
ing Welders, Machinists, Millwrights and Helpers and Watch-
men but excluding Superintendent, Assistant Superintendent,
Office and Clerical employees, those who may be employed in a
86 N. L. R. B., No. 11:
59
60 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
confidential or technical capacity, and Supervisors as defined in
Section 2 (11) of the National Labor Relations Act as -amended.
2. It is mutually understood and agreed that this contract
applies to the Union Shop operated by the Employer, and that
the jurisdiction of this contract extends over all employees in
the bargaining unit as covered by Paragraph 1 of this section.
A union shop shall be understood to mean such as is made up of
employees who are members of this union.
The Petitioner contends that Section I of the contract points to
an oral union-security agreement between the Employer and the Inter-
venor, which in the absence of a UA election, renders the contract
illegal and not a bar to a determination of representatives. The Em-
ployer and Intervenor allege that they have no union-security agree-
ment and that the contract sections have no meaning. They deny
that these sections constitute a union-security provision.
The alleged union-security provisions of the contract are highly
ambiguous. It is not clear from a reading of the contract whether
the parties actually conditioned employment upon membership in
the Intervenor or simply referred to the fact that the Intervenor
was the recognized bargaining representative in the plant. Under
these circumstances, we find it necessary to look to the evidence in
order to determine the intent of the parties.' The record discloses :
(1) that not all employees are members of the Intervenor; (2) that
no effort has been made by the Employer to discharge nonmember
employees; (3) that no union dues are deducted from the employees'
pay; and (4) that one of the contract negotiators testified that the
clauses were meaningless. Upon the basis of the foregoing facts and
upon the entire record in the case, we are persuaded that the parties
to this contract did not execute a union-security agreement. Ac-
cordingly, we find that the contract herein constitutes a bar to an
election at this time. We shall therefore dismiss the petition without
prejudice, however, to a new petition timely filed.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition filed herein be, and it hereby
is, dismissed.
MEMBER REYNOLDS took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Order.
1 We would distinguish the instant case from Matter of C. Hager t Sone Hinge Manu-
facturing Company, 80 N. L. R. B. 163, on the facts. In the Hager case, and cases follow-
ing that case , the union -security provisions were clearly and unambiguously spelled out.
Under those circumstances it would have been improper to consider parole evidence in deter-
mining the intent of the parties.