Anaconda Wire and Cable Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 26, 1951

94 N.L.R.B. 1557 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

ANACONDA WIRE AND CABLE COMPANY 1557
ready cast a valid ballot when he appeared at the polling place on
February 27, we hereby sustain the Petitioner's challenge to his
manual ballot.
IV. As the revised tally of ballots resulting from counting the
ballots of Langer, McAllister, and Yonk might be determinative of
the election in favor of the Petitioner, we shall not now consider that
Union's objections to conduct affecting the results of the election.
Order
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the pur-
pose of collective bargaining with the Employer, the Regional Director
for the Thirteenth Region, shall, pursuant to the Rules and Regula-
tions of the National Labor Relations Board, within ten (10) days
from the date of this Order, open and count the challenged ballots of
Robert Langer and Alton McAllister, and the challenged mail ballot
of Walter Yonk, and shall, thereafter, prepare and cause to be served
upon the parties a supplemental tally of ballots.
MEMBER STYLES took no part in the consideration of the above Sup-
plemental Decision and Order.
ANACONDA WIRE AND CABLE COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL UNION OF
ELECTRICAL RADIO AND MACHINE WORKERS, CIO, PETITIONER. Case
No. 13-RC-1811. Jwrae 26,1951
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 John P. von Rohr, 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-
member penal [Members Houston, Reynolds, and Styles].
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 organizations involved 1 claim to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
1International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 1000 , AFL, was permitted to
. intervene .on:the basis of its curreht ; contract'with . the.Employer.
94 NLRB No. 222.
1558 DECISIONS. OF NATIONAL -LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
3. The Intervenor and the Employer urge that their current con-
tract, which has an expiration date of July 25, 1952, is a bar to the
petition herein. The Petitioner contends the contract is not a bar,
because it contains an illegal union-security clause.
Pursuant to a union-authorization election, the Intervenor was certi-
fied by the Board on May 28, 1948, as authorized to make or enforce cer-
tain types of union-security agreements.2
. The current contract, executed October 2, 1950, contains the follow-
ing provision in article 1, section 3:
UNION SECURITY
(a) The "Union" represents that its intention is to include
under the provisions of this Agreement at all times only hourly-
rated employees of the Company's Marion, Indiana, Mill as speci-
fied in this Article except employees serving a probationary
period of Thirty (30) days.
(b) Upon thirty (30) calendar days of employment of such
hourly-rated employees, the "Company" agrees to retain in its
employ only members of said "Union" in good standing.
(c) New employees shall be referred to the "Union" for ex-
planation concerning the "Union" security requirements of this
Agreement.
The Employer and the Intervenor contend that the requirements
of Section 8 (a) (3) of the statute are met in that in subsection (b)
of the union-security provision all hourly rated employees are given
30 days in which to join the Union. However, it seems plain that sub-
section (b) refers only to employees who, on the effective date of the
,contract, were serving the "probationary period" referred to in sub-
section (a), or who would thereafter be hired and required to serve
that period. We see nothing in subsection (b), or elsewhere in the con-
tract, which provides a grace period for hourly rated employees, who
on the date the contract was executed had already served the proba-
tionary period. As Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act sanctions only union-
security agreements that require 'union ineinbership "on or after'the
thirtieth day following the beginning of such employment or the
effective date of such agreement, whichever is the later," (emphasis
added) the instant contract exceeds the limited form of union security
permitted by the Act; and the contract therefore cannot operate as
;a bar.4
2 Case No. 13-UA-833.
3 Blue Ribbon Creamery, 94 NLRB 201; Rock-Ola Manufacturing Corporation, 93 NLRB
1196; Monroe Browne and Leonard Rurup, d/b/a McCoy Truck Tire Recap Company, 93
NLRB 667.
4 Because of our findings herein , it becomes unnecessary to pass upon the other grounds
on which the Petitioner attacks the union -security clause in the Intervenor 's contract.
BELL TELEPHONE LABORATORIES, INC. 1559
Accordingly, we find that a question affecting commerce exists con-
cerning 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. The appropriate unit:
In accordance with the agreement of the parties, we find that all
production and maintenance employees at the Employer's Marion,
Indiana, electrical wire and cable plant, excluding powerhouse em-
ployees, the machine shop group, office clerical employees, guards,
professional employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act, con-
stitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
BELL TELEPHONE LABORATORIES , INC. and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIA-
TION OF MACHINISTS , PETITIONER . Case No. 2-1i^^3°O . cJU e 26,
1951
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 Eugene M. Purver,
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 [Members Houston, Reynolds, and Styles].
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 organizations involved claim to represent certain
employees of the Employer.'
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the represen-
tation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section
9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
The Intervenor's predecessor and the Employer on September 30,
1948, executed a contract to run for an initial 21/2-year period, to
March 29, 1951, and from year to year thereafter absent 60 days' no-
tice of termination. The contract covered all maintenance and re-
search production employees of the Employer at its New York City
'Communications Workers of America, Local 1161 , CIO, hereinafter called the Inter-
venor, was permitted to intervene at the hearing.
94 NLRB No. 224.