Siemons Mailing Service

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 19, 1959

124 N.L.R.B. 594 (N.L.R.B. 1959)

594 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondents have engaged in certain unfair labor practices,
I will recommend that they cease and desist therefrom and that they take certain
affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Having found that Respondent Company violated Section 8(a) (1), (2), and (3) of
the Act, and Respondent Local 222 violated Section 8(b) (1) (A) and (2) of the Act
by applying, maintaining, and enforcing an agreement containing an illegal union-
security provision, I will recommend that Respondent Company withdraw and with-
hold all recognition from Respondent Local 222 as the representative of its employees,
unless and until said Local 222 shall have demonstrated its exclusive majority repre-
sentative status pursuant to a Board-conducted election. Nothing in this recom-
mendation should be taken, however, to require Respondent Company to vary those
wages, hours, and other substantive features of its relations with the employees, if
any, which have been established in the performance of this agreement.
As previously found, Respondent Company has given unlawful assistance and
support to Respondent Local 222. Moreover, by their union-security agreement,
implemented by a dues checkoff arrangement, the Respondents have unlawfully re-
quired the employees to maintain membership in Respondent Local 222 as the price
of employment. In these circumstances, I find that it will effectuate the policies of
the Act to order Respondents jointly and severally to refund to the employees all
initiation fees, dues, or other moneys paid or checked off pursuant to the unlawful
union-security agreement, or any extension, renewal, modification, or supplements
thereof, or any agreement superseding it.18
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in
the case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. By recognizing Local 222 as the exclusive bargaining representative for the
Lake Success store employees, by applying the contract of February 4, 1957, to
the Lake Success store employees, and by maintaining said contract in effect with
respect to said employees, Respondent Company has engaged in and is engaging in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1), (2), and (3) of the
Act, and Respondent Local 222 has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(b) (1) (A) and (2) of the Act.
2. By deducting union dues from the wages of Lake Success store employees pur-
suant to the checkoff provisions of the aforesaid contract and remitting same to
Respondent Local 222, and by assisting Local 222 in obtaining employee signatures
to union authorization cards, Respondent Company has engaged in and is engaging
in further unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a) (2) and (1) of
the Act.
3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
1s See, e.g, Bryan Manufacturing Company, supra; Revere Metal Art Co., Inc., 123
NLRB 114; Hibbard Dowel Co., 113 NLRB 28.
Siemons Mailing Service, Petitioner and San Francisco-Oakland
Mailers Union No. 18, ITU, AFL-CIO; Independent Mailers'
and Addressers ' Union, and Bookbinders & Bindery Women,
Local 32-125, I.B. of B . Case No. 20-RM-?60. August 19, 1959
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION ON MOTIONS, ORDER
AMENDING DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELEC-
TION, AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
Subsequent to the Board's Decision and Direction of Election in
this case issued on November 14, 1958,1 finding that the Employer's
1 122 NLRB 81.
124 NLRB No. 82.
SIEMONS MAILING SERVICE 595
business is seasonal with peak periods in April and October, unfair
labor practice charges were filed by the Bookbinders, one of the Inter-
venors. During the investigation of these charges, the International
Mailers Union requested that it be allowed to intervene and appear
on the ballot in the election to be held, and thereafter, on January 26,
1959, filed a written motion to this effect with the Board. To this,
Intervenor Mailers Union No. 18 filed a written objection, partially
based upon the failure of the International Mailers Union to file a
showing of interest when requested to do so by the Regional Office.
The Board took no action on the posthearing motion for interven-
tion pending settlement of the charges, which was agreed upon by the
parties and which involved disestablishment of the remaining pre-
hearing Intervenor, the Independent Mailers' and Addressers' Union.
The period during which notice was posted pursuant to this settle-
ment agreement expired on May 11, 1959.
On May 15, the Employer filed its motion to withdraw the petition,
alleging a substantial change in the number and identity of the em-
ployees involved and a desire on its part not to "participate" in an
election. Mailers Union No. 18 has filed a written objection to this
withdrawal. The Board is advised by the Regional Director that the
Bookbinders also opposes this withdrawal.
The Board, having duly considered the matter, has determined
that the motion for posthearing intervention should be granted in
the circumstances of this case,' and the motion by the E mployer for
the withdrawal of its petition denied inasmuch as the Unions involved
seek an immediate election 4
Accordingly, we shall amend our direction of election to include
on the ballot as one of the three choices the International Mailers
Union, and to delete from the ballot the Independent Mailers' and
Addressers' Union pursuant to the settlement agreement in Case No.
20-CA-1552, approved by the Board, which calls for disestablishment
of this Union,.
In connection with the motion for withdrawal of petition, the Re-
gional Director has advised the Board of conditions suggesting a
IThe Bookbinders filed 8 ( a) (1), (2), and ( 3) charges on December 3, 1958, in Case
No. 20-CA-1552.
3 The Board ordinarily denies posthearing intervention unless it is supported by a show-
ing of interest "as of the time of hearing ." See Kermac Nuclear Fuels Corp., 122 NLRB
1512 , footnote 2; Transcontinental Bus System , Inc., 119 NLRB 1840, footnote 3; United
Boat Service Corporation , 55 NLRB 671 . This rule still obtains in representation cases
filed by unions, but we believe it should not obtain in representation cases filed by em-
ployers as to which no showing of interest by the unions involved is necessary. See
International Aluminum Corporation , 117 NLRB 1221 , and Stahl Manufacturing Co.,
119 NLRB 1260, footnote 2. Apart, however, from the fact that this is an employer peti-
tion, the circumstances of this case, including the passage of time since the Board found
that a question of representation existed , clearly calls for a resolution of that question by
an election in which the employees will have a choice among those unions still seeking
to represent them.
4 See International Aluminum Corporation , supra.
596 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
change in the seasonal pattern of the Employer's business and indicat-
ing that peak periods now occur monthly rather than semiannually.
In the circumstances it appears that an immediate election may be
appropriate. Accordingly, we incorporate in this Supplemental De-
cision an order directed to the parties to show cause why an election
should not be held within 40 days of this Supplemental Decision-
allowing 10 days for response to the show cause order-on a date of
peak employment as determined by the Regional Director.
[The Board amended the Direction of Election previously issued in
this case to include on the ballot the International Mailers Union,
and to delete from the ballot the Independent Mailers' and Addressers'
Union, which was disestablished subsequent to the said Direction of
Election.]
[The Board ordered that the parties herein shall show cause why
an immediate election should not be held and the Decision previously
issued herein amended to find that the peak seasons occur monthly
rather than in April and October. If no cause be shown within the
said period, the Board's Decision shall be so amended.]
CHAIRMAN LEEDOM and MEMBER BEAN took no part in the considera-
tion of the above Supplemental Decision on Motions, Order Amend-
ing Decision and Direction of Election, and Order To Show Cause.
Magnode Products , Inc. and District 13, Lodge No. 1850, Inter-
national Association of Machinists, AFL-CIO, Petitioner.
Case No. 9-RC-3585. August 19, 1959
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petitions duly filed under Section 0(c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before John H. Arbuckle,
hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are
free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirlned.
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 Leedom and Members Bean and Fanning].
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 labor organization involved claims to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
1 For reasons set forth below , the Employer ' s motion to dismiss the petition is denied.
Its request for oral argument is also denied , because in our opinion the record and the
Employer ' s brief adequately set forth the issues and the positions of the parties.
124 NLRB No. 78.