TWENTY-SIXTH ANNUAL REPORT - National Labor Relations Board

Unfair Labor Practices 101
into and giving effect to a union-security agreement executed on September
4,1959, with a union which was not in compliance with section
9 (f), (g), and (h) at the time of execution, although the compliance
requirement was thereaftei repealed c° prior to the dischaige of an
employee pursuant to this union-security provision and the filing of
the charge 61 And in Hooker Chemical Corp ,62 the Board found a
union violation for entering into an oral union-secuiity agreement at
a time when it was not in compliance with foimer section 9 (f), (g),
and (h),63 but dismissed the complaint against the employer on the
basis for the Supieme Court's Bryandectsion" because of the untimely
service of the charge against the employer
(b) Terms of agreement
The proviso to section 8(a) (3) sanctions only agreements which
provide for union security within the prescribed limits Employees
may not be compelled to acquire union membership until after 30 days
"following the beginning of [their] employment, or the effective date
of [the] agreement, whichever is later"
Thus, the Board found violations of section 8(a) (3) where the
employer entered into or gave effect to union-secui ity provisions which
established closed-shop or preferential hiring conditions, 06 failed to
grant old nonunion employees,'" or new employees, 68 the statutory
30-day grace period, provided a 30-day grace period retroactive to
the contract's "effective" date, which was 21 clays pi ioi to the execution
of the contract, 6° of required the deduction of initiation fees from
nonmembers' wages in installments commencing the first day of
oo See footnote 53, (thin e, p 100
a Former Chairman Leedom found a violstion bolely on the basis that the union securit‘
provision did not provide a full 30-day grace period, and deemed it unnecessary to decide
the noncompliance aspect Member Rodgers also found a violation on the basis of an
Inadequate grace period, but Member Kimball did not agree Compare with HooLer Chemical
Corp, 128 NLRB 1394, and Checker Taws Co • 131 NLRB No 96
a 128 NLRB 1394
a Member Rodgers dissented with respect to the majority's failure to order a reimburse
ment remedy He was also of the opinion that the union security agreement was also
unlawful because it was oral, and because it conditioned continued employment on both
3oin1ng the union and signing a checkoff authoriration card Id, at pp 1398-1399
" See abos e footnote 56, p 100
See also Checkei Tars Ca, 131 NLRB No 96, footnote 9, as to the sec JO(b) aspect
fie See, e g, Union Taxi Corp, 130 NLRB 814, American Advertuting Distributors, 129
NLRB 640 650 654 , Oschem lc if Sons, 1 -10 NLRB 1073 (or q l adoption and modification
of original written unless ful union security agreement, parol modification, even if sublo
Id not to cure illcpal clause tAen It not enrol cod) See also Booth if Flinn
Co, 129 NLRB 867 881 (unlawful union-security conditions found on basis of contractual
provisions and union's bylaws which employer orally agreed to follow) , compare with
Moth aw Construction Co • Inc, 131 NLRB No 111, where no violation was found
CT See, e g, Shear's Pharmacy, lac, 128 NLRB 1417
a, See, e g, Checker Taxi Co , lac, 131 NLRB No 96, Cache, wits if Bons, 130 NLRI'
1078
Burke Oldsmobile, Inc. 128 NLRB 79, 88, enforced In part, 288 F 2d 14 (C A 2)