NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

VII. PRINCIPLES ESTABLISHED 89
The discharge or other discrimination is, of course, not privileged
under the proviso unless occurring pursuant to a bona fide agreement
which actually does require as a condition of employment
membership in a labor organization. In Matter of Waterman
Steamship Corporation,18 the employer discharged members of one
union, citing a preferential hiring agreement with a rival union.
The Board rejected the defense because the agreement stated it
did not "require the discharge of any employee who may not desire
to join the Union." In Matter of National Electric Products Corporation,19
the agreement provided: "The Employer * * * agrees to
employ only members of the Union or those who have made proper
arrangements for becoming members within 21 days after being
employed, or in the event of failure of employee to join the union
within the aforesaid period, the Company will deduct from such
employee's wage the union dues for each calendar month * * *
which such employee would pay if he or she had become a member
of the Union." The Board stated : "The proviso speaks of an agreement
with a labor organization requiring as a condition of employment
'membership therein.' The contract proviso here in question
is not so limited; it requires membership in the Brotherhood or deductions
of pay equal to Brotherhood dues. Either contingency comes
within the prohibition of Section 8 (3) unless saved by the proviso."
The Board found it unnecessary to determine whether the proviso
of section 8 (3) could be applicable to this kind of contract because
the contract failed to meet the other conditions of the proviso. In
Matter of M. & M. Woodworking Company,2° the employer had a
closed-shop agreement with Plylock Local, No. 2531, affiliated with
the carpenters' union. The Plylock Local, following the applicable
provisions of its charter and bylaws, voted almost unanimously to
transfer its affiliation from the carpenters' union and became Local
No. 102, affiliated with the International Woodworkers of America.
Thereafter the carpenters' union chartered New Local 2531. The
employer discharged those refusing to join the new carpenters' union
local, in reliance on the closed-shop agreement. The Board held :
It is not necessary to decide here, however, whether or not the contract
remained in force with the Plylock Local after the change in name and affiliation.
If the contract continued as a valid contract with Local No. 102, as the
successor of Local No. 2531, plainly the respondent had no authority thereunder
to require membership in new Local No. 2531 as a condition of employment.
On the other hand, if the contract expired as a result of withdrawal of the
Plylock Local from the Carpenters' Union, the respondent likewise cannot rely
upon the contract as justification for requiring membership in New Local No.
2531. In either event the respondent's activities constitute unlawful discrimination
against its employees contrary to Section 8 (3) of the Act.n
18 Matter of Waterman Steamship Corporation and National Maritime Union of
America. Engine Division. etc.. 7 N. L. 11. B. 237.
1, Matter of National Electric Products Corporation and United Electrical and Radio
1Vorker8 of America. Local No. 609. 3 N. L. R. B. 475.
20 Matter of M. and M. Woodworking Company and Plywood and Veneer Workers' Union,
Loral No. 101, affiliated with International Woodworkers of America. 6 N. L. R. B. 372.
21 Also, Matter of Smith Wood Products, Inc., and Plywood and Veneer Workers, Local
No. 2691, International Woodworkers of America. 7 N. L. R. B. 950. In this case it was
contended that the original local did not legally withdraw from the parent organization.
The constitution provided that a local could not withdraw so long as 10 members in good
standing objected thereto. Sixty-three persons signed a petition stating that they wished
to retain the ori ginal affiliation. The Board found that "the evidence Indicates not only
that several of the persons who signed the petition were not members of the local but that
many of the signatures were obtained within the respondent's plant by supervisory officials
of the respondent. Such petition cannot, therefore, be considered an objection to the withdra
wal of Carpenters' Local 2691 from the Carpenters' Union."