07.02.2015 Views

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

VII. PRINCIPLES ESTABLISHED 89<br />

The discharge or other discrimination is, of course, not privileged<br />

under the proviso unless occurring pursuant to a bona fide agreement<br />

which actually does require as a condition of employment<br />

membership in a labor organization. In Matter of Waterman<br />

Steamship Corporation,18 the employer discharged members of one<br />

union, citing a preferential hiring agreement with a rival union.<br />

The Board rejected the defense because the agreement stated it<br />

did not "require the discharge of any employee who may not desire<br />

to join the Union." In Matter of National Electric Products Corporation,19<br />

the agreement provided: "The Employer * * * agrees to<br />

employ only members of the Union or those who have made proper<br />

arrangements for becoming members within 21 days after being<br />

employed, or in the event of failure of employee to join the union<br />

within the aforesaid period, the Company will deduct from such<br />

employee's wage the union dues for each calendar month * * *<br />

which such employee would pay if he or she had become a member<br />

of the Union." The Board stated : "The proviso speaks of an agreement<br />

with a labor organization requiring as a condition of employment<br />

'membership therein.' The contract proviso here in question<br />

is not so limited; it requires membership in the Brotherhood or deductions<br />

of pay equal to Brotherhood dues. Either contingency comes<br />

within the prohibition of Section 8 (3) unless saved by the proviso."<br />

The Board found it unnecessary to determine whether the proviso<br />

of section 8 (3) could be applicable to this kind of contract because<br />

the contract failed to meet the other conditions of the proviso. In<br />

Matter of M. & M. Woodworking Company,2° the employer had a<br />

closed-shop agreement with Plylock Local, No. 2531, affiliated with<br />

the carpenters' union. The Plylock Local, following the applicable<br />

provisions of its charter and bylaws, voted almost unanimously to<br />

transfer its affiliation from the carpenters' union and became Local<br />

No. 102, affiliated with the International Woodworkers of America.<br />

Thereafter the carpenters' union chartered New Local 2531. The<br />

employer discharged those refusing to join the new carpenters' union<br />

local, in reliance on the closed-shop agreement. The Board held :<br />

It is not necessary to decide here, however, whether or not the contract<br />

remained in force with the Plylock Local after the change in name and affiliation.<br />

If the contract continued as a valid contract with Local No. 102, as the<br />

successor of Local No. 2531, plainly the respondent had no authority thereunder<br />

to require membership in new Local No. 2531 as a condition of employment.<br />

On the other hand, if the contract expired as a result of withdrawal of the<br />

Plylock Local from the Carpenters' Union, the respondent likewise cannot rely<br />

upon the contract as justification for requiring membership in New Local No.<br />

2531. In either event the respondent's activities constitute unlawful discrimination<br />

against its employees contrary to Section 8 (3) of the Act.n<br />

18 Matter of Waterman Steamship Corporation and National Maritime Union of<br />

America. Engine Division. etc.. 7 N. L. 11. B. 237.<br />

1, Matter of National Electric Products Corporation and United Electrical and Radio<br />

1Vorker8 of America. Local No. 609. 3 N. L. R. B. 475.<br />

20 Matter of M. and M. Woodworking Company and Plywood and Veneer Workers' Union,<br />

Loral No. 101, affiliated with International Woodworkers of America. 6 N. L. R. B. 372.<br />

21 Also, Matter of Smith Wood Products, Inc., and Plywood and Veneer Workers, Local<br />

No. 2691, International Woodworkers of America. 7 N. L. R. B. 950. In this case it was<br />

contended that the original local did not legally withdraw from the parent organization.<br />

The constitution provided that a local could not withdraw so long as 10 members in good<br />

standing objected thereto. Sixty-three persons signed a petition stating that they wished<br />

to retain the ori ginal affiliation. The Board found that "the evidence Indicates not only<br />

that several of the persons who signed the petition were not members of the local but that<br />

many of the signatures were obtained within the respondent's plant by supervisory officials<br />

of the respondent. Such petition cannot, therefore, be considered an objection to the withdra<br />

wal of Carpenters' Local 2691 from the Carpenters' Union."

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!