Ketchum & Co, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 9, 1951

95 N.L.R.B. 43 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

KETCFHUM & COMPANY, INC. 43.
KET'CHUM & COMPANY, INC. and HAMPTON BROWN, PETITIONER and'
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF OFFICE EMPLOYEES , LOCAL 20940, A. F..
OF L. Case No. O-RD-113. July 9, 1951
Decision and Direction of Election
Upon a decertification petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the-
National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was heard before Benjamin
B. Lipton, 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-meniber-
panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Murdock 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 Petitioner, an employee of the Employer, asserts that the
Union is no longer the representative, as defined in Section 9 (a) of
the Act, of the employees designated in the petition.
3. The Employer alleges that its contract with the Union, which,
expires on March 7, 1953, is a bar to this proceeding. This contract
was originally executed on March 7,1944, for 1 year and "was thereafter-
extended from year to year by supplemental agreements. The orig--
inal contract contained union-security clauses which had not been au-
thorized in elections pursuant to Section 9 (e) of the Act. On March
28, 1948,. the Union wrote the Employer that "it is understood. andr
agreed" that the Union would petition the Board for a union-authori-
zation election. The record shows that this letter was written shortly
after the Employer and the Union had orally agreed to disregard the-
union-security clauses in their contract until such an election was-
conducted and thereafter to replace those clauses with others that
"would be permissible and legal." It is the Employer's position that
the infirmity in the contract was removed by its oral agreement with-
the Union and the letter of March 28, which confirmed this agreement..
We do not agree. The Board has frequently held that the mere exist-
' The Employer contends that the hearing officer erred in refusing to permit the Employer-
to adduce evidence showing that the Petitioner is not the real party in interest in this-
case but is acting as a front for a labor organization known as Allied Trades Council, AFL, .
herein called Allied, and that Allied desires to supplant the currently recognized bargaining
agent of the employees here involved . We find no merit to this contention . The Act-
permits labor organizations as well as individual employees to file petitions for the
decertification of a recognized bargaining agent , provided that the petitioning union has
effected compliance with the filing requirements of Section 9 (f), (g), and ( h) of the Act.
The Board ' s official records show that Allied has complied with the Act 's filing require-
ments. Under these circumstances , we, like the hearing officer , regard as immaterial to--
the issues herein any evidence which would establish that the Petitioner is acting on
behalf of Allied, allegedly the real interested part in this case . The Employer 's motion
to dismiss the petition on the afore -mentioned ground is therefore denied.
95 NLRB No. 4.
-44 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
-ence of union-security provisions in a contract unauthorized by any
election acts as a restraint upon those employees desiring to refrain
from union activities within the meaning of Section 7 of the Act.
We find that neither the oral agreement nor the Union's letter ef-
fectively eradicated the restraint upon the employees imposed by the
unauthorized union-security provision.2 Accordingly, we find that
the contract herein is not a bar- to a present determination of
representatives.
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 accordance with the agreement of the parties., we find that all
the office employees employed at the New York, New York, plants of
the Employer which are located at 50 Vandam Street and 54 Fulton
.Street, respectively, excluding confidential secretaries and all super-
visors as defined in the Act, constitute a. unit appropriate for pur-
poses of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b)
,of the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
2 Eagle Lock Company, 8S NLRB 970 ; Tyee Plywood Company, 88 NLRB 858 ; Pacific
,Gas and Electric Company, 87 NLRB 257; Roosevelt Oil and Refining Corporation, 85
NLRB 965.
BEMIS BRO. BAG COMPANY 1 AND/OR BEMISTON VILLAGE COUNCIL FOUN-
DATION and UNITED TEXTILE WORKERS OF AMERICA, A. F. OF L.,
PETITIONER. Case No. 10-RC-1279. July 10, 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 S. Patton, hearing ofli-
•cer. 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
panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Murdock and Styles].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Bemis Bro. Bag Company, hereinafter called the Company,
is a Missouri corporation with its principal office at St. Louis, Missouri.
Th% Company operates approximately 32 manufacturing plants in
various States of the United States. In the course of its operations
1 The name of the Company appears as amended at the hearing.
95 NLRB No. 12.