J. Freezer & Son, Inc.

In the Matter of J. FREEZER & SON, INC., EMPLOYER and UNITED CON- STRUCTION WORKERS, AFFILIATED WITH UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, PETITIONER Case No. 5-R-2913.December 22, 1947 On August 20, 1947, 2 days before the effective date of the amended statute, the Board issued a Decision and Certification of Representa- tives in the above-entitled proceeding? On November 14, 1947, we denied the Employer's Petition for Reconsideration. The Employer now requests that the Board rescind its certification and dismiss the proceeding, on the ground that the Petitioner has not complied with the registration and filing requirements of the amended Act. For one thing, granting this request would contravene the saving clause in Section 103 of the amended Act, which leaves unaffected for 1 year any certification issued under the provisions of the original statute.2 Moreover, there is nothing in the amended Act to suggest that Sections 9 (f), (g) and (h) should be applied retroactively, so as to void certifications issued before August 22 to unions subsequently not in compliance.3 The motion will therefore be denied. ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss filed herein by J. Freezer & Son, Inc., on November 24, 1947, be, and it hereby is, denied. 1 74 N L R. B. 1294. ' "Sac. 103. No provisions of this title shall affect any certification of representatives or any determination as to the appropriate collective- bargaining unit, which was made under section 9 of the National Labor Relations Act prior to the effective date of this title until one year after the date of such certification or if, in respect of any such certification, a collective-bargaining contract was entered into prior to the effective date of this title, until the end of the contract period or until one year after such date, whichever first occurs." i It is true that the Petitioner, while still out of compliance, could not expect a com- plaint to issue in an unfair labor practice proceeding based upon any such earlier certifi- cation However, that is not the issue before us in this case. If the employer should choose to bargain pursuant to the certification, and nothing in this order precludes its doing so, the problem would not arise 75 N. L. R. B., No. 75. 646