Kenrose Manufacturing Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 10, 1952

101 N.L.R.B. 267 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

KENROSE MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC. 267
Employer's complement from season to season," the policies of the
Act will best be effectuated by the direction of an immediate election.10
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
e In cases such as this, the Board does not condition the holding of elections upon a
showing that there is substantial identity in the employee complement from season to
season . Were we to agree with the Employer ' s reasoning , we would be precluded from
conducting an election in any seasonal industry where, as is often the case, there is a high
rate of turnover from season to season.
10 Cf. Franklin County Sugar Company, 97 NLRB 936; California Spray-Chemical Corp.,
supra ; Cain Canning Company, 81 NLRB 213 . The cases relied upon by the Employer in
this connection contain facts which are decisively distinguishable from those herein.
ILENROSE MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC. and TEXTILE WORKERS
UNION OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER. Case No. 5-IBC-1130. No-
vember 10, 1952
Decision and Order
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Louis S. Wallerstein, 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
panel [Members Houston, 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.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent employees of
the Employer.
3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c)
(1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, for the following reasons:
The Employer and Intervenor (International Ladies' Garment
Workers' Union, AFL) on July 1, 1950, entered into a collective bar-
gaining contract covering employees at the Employer's two Roanoke,
Virginia, plants involved herein. By its terms the contract was to
be effective "July 1, 1950 for a period of two (2) years and .. .
terminate on Sept. 30, 1952," subject to a 30-day automatic renewal
clause . This contract also contained an unlawful union-security
clause.' On July 18, 1952, the contracting parties entered into a
1 The union-security clause was as follows : ".. . It is agreed that during the period
of this agreement or any renewal or extension thereof, the Employer will employ none
but members in good standing of the Union and will not retain in its employ any workers
declared by the Union not to be members thereof in good standing.
In the event the employer shall require additional workers, the Employer shall have the
right to engage such workers in the open market. Such workers need not necessarily be
members of the Union when hired but must become members in good standing after the
respective trial period hereinafter referred to."
101 NLRB No. 71.
268 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
new contract, eliminating the unlawful union-security clause 2 and
extending the 1950 contract, with certain changes not here pertinent,
to September 30, 1954. The Petitioner requested recognition on
July 25, 1952, and filed its petition on July 30, 1952.
The Petitioner contends the 1952 contract is a premature extension
of the 1950 contract and cannot therefore bar an immediate election.
The Employer and Intervenor assert that the premature extension
rule is inapplicable to the 1952 contract because, among other things,
the 1950 contract contained an unlawful union-security clause and
thus constituted no bar from its inception. As the Petitioner's claim
and petition followed the execution of the valid 1952 contract, they
contend the latter contract bars the present petition. We agree with
the Employer's and Intervenor's contention.
The Board has previously held that the premature extension rule
is applicable only if the original agreement was a bar to an election
at the time the subsequent agreement was executed. If the original
agreement was not a bar, the premature extension rule is inapplicable
to the subsequent agreement.' Here, the 1950 contract was never a
bar because of its unlawful union-security clause. The 1952 con-
tract, therefore, was no "premature extension" and, as the Petitioner's
claim and petition were untimely with respect to that contract, it
constitutes a bar to a present determination of representatives.
Accordingly, we shall order that the petition be dismissed.
Order
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition filed herein be, and it hereby
is, dismissed.
2 In its letter to the Employer on July 11 , 1952, the Intervenor stated that for some
time counsel had been urging the Intervenor to correct the unlawful union-security clause
in the 1950 contract.
s Cuahman'a Sons, Inc., 88 NLRB 121 ; The Broderick Company, 85 NLRB 708.
A. H. BELO CORPORATION and RADIO BROADCAST TECHNICIANS, LOCAL
UNION 1257, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS,
AFL, PETITIONER . Case No. 16-RC-1149. November 10, 1952
Decision and Order
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before William H. Renkel, Jr.,
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
panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Murdock].
101 NLRB No. 77.