TWENTY-SIXTH ANNUAL REPORT - National Labor Relations Board

48 Twenty-sixth Annual Report of the National Labor Relations Board
lecent Keystone case 32 In this respect, as well as in respect to savings
clauses which are not iecognized as curing for bar purposes otherwise
invalid union-security provisions," the majority perceived no reason
to apply a different iule when a, proscribed "hot cargo" clause is in-
1 olved " As to the fact that the contract was executed before the
enactment of section 8(e), the majority noted that it was not dealing
with a possible retroactive application of the section to the execution
of the clause, but rather with the present effect to be given that clause
aftei it has been rendered unenforceable and void by the enactment
of section 8(e)
Similarly, in another of these cases," a Board panel held that a
clause N%hich excluded from the employees' "job duties, course of
employment or Al oil" any woik "on goods, products or materials
coming from or going to the piemises of an Employer wheie there
is any contioveisy with a Union" was a "hot cargo" clause violative
of section 8(e), and removed the contract as a bar, despite a savings
clause And in the third case,41 a panel held a contract provision that
"[i]n the event the Employer discontumes any of his manufacturing
processes and sub-lets this work to another firm the work
will be perfoimed by a firm under contiact with an International
Union, if available and comparable in quality," was also a "hot cargo"
clause violative of section 8(e), and lemoved the contract as a bar
10 an election
e Changes in Identity of Contracting Party—Schism—Defunctness
The basic rules as to whether a contract will be denied as a bar
because of a sstusm in the ranks of the conti acting union, or because
the umon is defunct, weie stated in the Hershey Chocolate case 42 duiing
fiscal 1959 Applying these rules during this past year, the
Boaid held that a schism did not exist in the circumstances of one
case, and that the contract was a bar, notwithstanding "disaffiliation
action" at a duly constituted meeting of the contracting union held
for the put pose of disaffiliating therefrom and affiliating with the petitioner
42a The Board obseived that after such "disaffiliation action,"
3- 121 NLRB 880, 884-885 (1958)
See The Schnadig Corp, 125 NLRB 1934 (1959)
"Member Fanning was of the opinion that the provision here did not restrain or coerce
the emplo‘ees in their selection or refraining from selecting a l yirgaining representative
and, therefore, did not raise a conflict between the policies set forth in sec 1 of the act—
between stability of the collective bargaining rels.tionship and the freedom of employees
to select a bsrgaining representative—to justify setting aside the contract and the
contract-bar rule Former Chairman Leedom dissented solely on the basis of the fact
that the contract was executed before the enactment of sec 8(e)
4° A men can Feed Co., 129 NLRB 321
" &aerator Mfg Corp • 129 NLRB 704
Hershey Chocolate Corp, 121 NLRB 901 (1958) , Twenty-fourth Annual Report
(1959), p 27 See also Twenty-fifth Annual Report (1960), p 32
12a Clayton d Lambert Mfg Co ,128 NLRB 209