Reo Manufacturing Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsFeb 18, 1953

102 N.L.R.B. 1493 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

REO MANUFACTURING CORPORATION 1493 4. The following employees of the Employer constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act: All production and mainte- nance employees at the Employer's Chicago, Illinois, plant, excluding office clerical employees, watchman,' professional employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act. 5. The Employer contends that almost all its employees are aliens, being citizens of Estonia, a Russian satellite, and that they may be regarded as enemy aliens "within the interpretation and description of the McCarran Act," and therefore not entitled to the benefits of the National Labor Relations Act. The only authority cited for such a position is Section 262 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (Public Law 414, 82nd Congress, 66 Stat. 163), which section deals merely with the registration of aliens. As we find nothing in that section or in other parts of that Act supporting the Employer's posi- tion, and as the eligibility of aliens to vote in Board elections is well established,3 we shall overrule the contention and permit these aliens to vote. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this volume.] 2 As the parties agree that the duties of this employee consist entirely of patrolling the Employer 's plant and performing guard functions , we find that he is a guard and accord- ingly exclude him from the unit. 3 Cities Service Oil Co . of Pennsylvania, 87 NLRB 324, 331. RICO MANUFACTURING CORPORATION and DISTRICT 65, DIsTRmuzzvE, PROCESSING AND OFFICE WORKERS OF AMERICA, PETITIONER. Case No. 2-RC-5412. February 18,1953 Decision and Direction of Election Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Max Dauber, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from preju- dicial 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-member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Murdock 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. 102 NLRB No. 154. 250983-vol. 102-53-95 1494 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain em- ployees of the Employer. 3. The Employer and the Intervenor assert their current 3-year contract, signed August 1, 1951, and effective from that date, covering the employees herein involved, as a bar to this proceeding. The Petitioner contends that the contract is no bar. With respect to this contention, it is clear that the contract is for a 3-year term with pro- vision for automatic renewal thereafter on a yearly basis in the ab- sence of a valid termination notice from either party. As the record fails to establish that contracts for 3-year periods are customary in this industry, we find that the current contract is of unreasonable duration. However, in accordance with our usual practice in such cases, we shall permit the contract to constitute a bar during the first 2. years of its term 2 Because less than 2 years have elapsed since the effective date of the contract, the petition has been prematurely filed and is barred, unless the contract is prevented from operating as a bar because the union-security provisions contained therein may be invalid. The Petitioner does not specifically challenge the validity of the union-security provisions in the contract. However, as the contract is urged as a bar to an immediate election, we shall examine these provisions to determine whether they exceed the limited form of union-security agreement permitted by Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. Among the provisions included in the current contract are the fol- lowing : Article 1. The Employer shall maintain a Union shop, under the terms and conditions as set forth in this agreement, employing none but members declared by the Union to be in good stand- ing, .. . Article 112. The employment of an apprentice for the first six weeks shall be deemed a trial period and therefore the lay-off or discharge of such apprentice during this period shall not be subject to review. At the end of six weeks, if such worker is retained for further employment, he or she shall join the union immediately and be entitled to all benefits and privileges of this agreement. Article 20. Any State or Federal laws or legislation, affecting hours and wages or other terms of employment affecting this em- ployer which provide for condition contrary to the terms of this agreement shall be deemed to be incorporated in this agreement, and shall in effect be deemed a modification of this agreement to that extent. In all other respects, this agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 1 Handbag & Leather Novelty Workers, Local # 1, International Handbag, Luggage, Belt & Novelty Workers Union, AFL, herein called the Intervenor, was permitted to intervene on the basis of a claimed contractual interest. 2 San Francisco Retailers Council, 90 NLRB 1901. HOLSUM BAKERS, INC, 1495 Paragraphs 1 and 12 obligate employees who were employed when the contract became effective, but who were not then members of the Intervenor, to become members without the benefit of the statutory 30-day grace period. This clause provides for union security in excess of that permitted by Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act, and is unlawful within the meaning of that Section .3 The inclusion of paragraph 20 in the provisions of the contract does not warrant a different finding. The Board has held that where, as hire, an illegal union-security clause contains no provision expressly deferring its application, but is merely subject to the general applica- tion of a savings clause, such clause does not cure the illegal union- security provision. In these circumstances we have found a contract containing such an unlawful union-security provision not a bar to an election .4 We find accordingly, that the contract between the Em- ployer and the Intervenor is not a bar to this proceeding. We find that a 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. 4. In accord with the agreement of the parties at the hearing, we find that all production and maintenance employees including ship- ping employees at the Employer's Brooklyn, New York plant, ex- cluding office, clerical, and professional employees, guards, watchmen, and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Sec- tion 9 (b) of the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this volume.] 3Charle8 A. Krause Milling Co., 97 NLRB 536; Archer-Daniele-Midland Company, 97 NLRB 647; C. Hiltebrant Dry Dock Company , Inc., 98 NLRB 1275. 4 Muntz Television , Inc., 92 NLRB 29. HOLSUM BAKERS, INC. and TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS AND HELPERS LO- CAL UNION No. 79, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, A. F. OF L., PETITIONER. Case No. 10-RC-215.. February 18, 1953 Decision and Direction of Elections Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Allen Sinsheimer, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. 102 NLRB No. 147.