NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

134 THIRD ANNUAL REPORT OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(a) THE EFFECT OF EXISTING CONTRACTS
The effect of existing contracts upon proceedings for investigation
and certification of representatives has been considered by the Board
in a number of cases.
An existing contract has been held to constitute no bar to an election
or certification if the organization with which it was made did
not represent a majority of the employees at the time the contract
was executed. 85 In Matter of Southern Chemical Cotton Company,36
the Board, in finding that a closed-shop contract was not a bar to
an election, stated :
If, as in this Case, an employer enters into an agreement With one of two
labor organizations at a time when both are claiming the right of exclusive
representation, we must hold that the agreement Cannot bar our conducting an
election, unless we are convinced that at the time of its execution the labor
organization with which it was made represented a majority of the employees.
Nor will a contract operate as a bar to an election where, because
of the unfair labor practices of the employer, the organization with
which the contract was made does not represent the free and uncoerced
choice of a majority of the employees. 37 In Matter of Mine
B Coal Company," the evidence indicated that the employer had
urged some of its employees to join the United Mine Workers of
facts of common knowledge If we therefore concluded that both unions would submit to
the authority of that body. Since the action by the Executive Council of the American
Federation of Labor on September 5, 1936, suspending the international unions affiliated
with the Committee for Industrial Organization, if not for a long time before, those unions
have ceased to obey the orders of the Federation."
25 See Matter of Charles Cushman Shoe Company et al. and United Shoe Workers of
America, 2 N. L. R. B. 1015 (terms of the contract not stated) ; Matter of American-West
African Line, Inc. and National Marine Engineers' Beneficial A.ssooiation, 4 N. L. R. B.
1086 (closed-shop contract) ; Matter of McKesson ct Robbins, Inc., Biumaffer Frank Drug
Division and International Longshoremen d Warehousemens Union, Local 9, District 1,
affiliated with the C. I. 0., 5 N. L. R. B. 70 (closed-shop agreements) ; Matter of American
France Line et al. (Shepard Steamship Company) and International Seamen's Union of
America, 7 N. L. R. B. 79 (contract granting exclusive recognition and preference in
employment).
"Matter of Southern Chemical Cotton Company and Textile Workers Organizing Committee,
3 N. L. R. B. 869.
17 Matter of Federal Knitting Mills Company and Bomberger Reinthal Company and
International Ladies, Garment Workers Union, 8 N. L. R. B. 257 (contract providing for
recognition as sole bargaining agent) ; Matter Of National Electric Products Corporation
and United Electrical and Radio Workers of America, Local No. 609, 3 N. L. R. B. 475
(closed-shop contract) ; Matter of Lenox Shoe Company, Inc., and United Shoe Workers
of America, affiliated with the Committee for Industrial Organization, 4 N. L. R. B. 372
(closed-shop contract) ; Matter of Pacific Greyhound Lines and Brotherhood of Locomotive
Firemen and Engine/men, 4 N. L. It. B. 520 (contract recognizing the Amalgamated as
representative of the Company employees employed in certain capacities) where it was
contended by the Amalgamated that, because of the contract, a presumption had arisen
that it represented a majority of the employees when the contract was madehich the
petitioning union must overcome by a preponderance of the evidence before the board B could
direct an election. In answer to this contention the Board said : "Even if we should
adopt the contention of the Amalgamated, which we do not, that the agreement Of April
21 raises a presumption that the Amalgamated represented a majority of the Company's
employees at that time and thus eliminated the question concerning representation, the
presumption has been conclusively rebutted by the evidence directly to the contrary, indicating
that the designation of the Amalgamated as representative was not the result of a
free choice by a majority."
In Matter of Friedman Blau Farber Company and International Ladies' Garment Workers'
Union, Local No. 195, 4 N. L. Ft. B. 151 (contract providing for recognition as sole
bargaining agent) it was contended that even if the employees were coerced into joining
the organization which on June 7 entered into a contract with the Company, the contract
should nevertheless be a bar to an election. inasmuch as a majority of the employees, of
their own free will, signed a resolution declaring that they were not coerced and approving
the contract. The Board held : "In light of the Company's activities on June 7, the
presentation of the resolution for signature openly, and upon Company property, did not
afford to the employees an opportunity' to express their desires in the matter freely and
without coercion. It is apparent that . .. their choice of representatives has been influenced
by factors which should be eliminated in choosing representatives under the provisions of
the Act. It seems likely that a definitive expression of the employees' wishes will be
obtained only after they are permitted to vote by a secret ballot free, from the fear of
retribution for expressing themselves adversely to thern Company's wishes."
le Matter of Mine B Coal Company and Progressive Miners of America, Local No. 54,
4 N. L. It. B. 316.