TWENTY-SIXTH ANNUAL REPORT - National Labor Relations Board

102 Twenty-sixth Annual Report of the National Labor Relations Board
employment, notwithstanding employee protest or the absence of
employee written authorization 70
HoweN er, a contract clause requiring "all newly-hired help" to
obtain a "referral" card from the union was held not "of itself" unlawful,
where the clause explicitly required the union to furnrsh such a
card to neNN ly hired help without regard to union membership, and
did not, by its terms, "place the employment status of employees
alreadv hired by t,he Company under the control of the Union " 71
(i) "Agency shop"
In General Motors Corporation," the &aid had occasion to consider
for the first time the legality of an "agency shop" proposal—
under which employees would be required to pay to the union,
the collective-bargaining representative, the equivalent of initiation
fees and monthly dues regulaily required of union membeis, as
a condition of employment after 30 days following the date of the
agreement or initial employment, whichever was later—for a plant
located in a "right-to-work" State which prohibits arrangements requiring
union membership but not "agency shops" After the
close of the fiscal year, a Board majority 73 vacated an earlier majority
decision in the same case 74 which held the "agency shop" arrangement
unlawful, and—without having to reach the issue as to the withdrawal
of the Federal act under section 14(b), or the "right-to-work"
statute of the particular State oi any other State—held this foim of
union security lawful undei the proviso to section 8(a) (3) absent
any "suggestion" that unioit membership was not available to any
nonmember employte who wished to join The majority stated,
we are unable to distinguish, so far as its legality is concerned, the instant
agency shop proposal from any other union-security proposal which predicates
a right of discharge only upon an employee's failure to tender the equiN alent
of regular union dues and initiation fees The Union sought to bargain concerning
a clause which would leave the final decision as to membership or
nonmembership with each individual employee, at 1128 option, but nevertheless,
to condition employment upon the payment of sums of money which would
constitute each employee's share of financial support In our opinion, such a
proposal fully comports with the congressional intention in Section 8(a) (3) for
the allowance of union-security contracts 75
" A m er can Advertising Distributor, 129 NLRB 640 648 654 See also Hooker Chemical
Corp 128 NLRB 1394 particularl y dissent of Member Rodgers
'n Cad dim Wire Corp, 128 NLRB 1002, 1005
" 1U NLRB 481
" Chairman McCulloch and Members Rodgers, Fanning, and Brown—Member Leedom
dissenting—in 133 NLRB No 21 (Sept 29, 1981)
" Former Chairman Leedom and Members Jenkins and Kimball—Members Rodgers and
Fanning dissenting—in 130 NLRB 481
vi The 8(a)(5) aspect of the case is discussed below, p 112