O. B. Andrews Co.

III the Matter of O. B. ANDREWS COMPANY, EMPLOYER and UNITED PAPERWORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER Case No. 10-RC-:535.-Decided September 01, 1949 DECISION AND ORDER - Upon a petition duly filed,.a hearing in this matter was held before John C. Carey, Jr., hearing officer of the National Labor Relations Board. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. 2. The Petitioner and the Intervenor, Chattanooga Paper Products Workers' Specialty Union No. 394, affiliated with Printing Pressmen and Assistants of North America, A. F. L., are labor organizations claiming to represent employees of the Employer. 3. For reasons stated hereinafter, no question affecting commerce exists concerning the representation of employees of the Employer, within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. . The Employer and the Intervenor executed a contract dated April 10, 1948, covering the employees concerned herein. This contract was automatically renewed on February 1, 1949, and constitutes a bar to a present determination of representatives based on the petition filed on March 1, 1949, unless the following sections thereof constitute union-security provisions in the absence of authorization of the Inter- venor under Section 9 (e) (1) of the Act. Section I, subsections 1 and 2, of the contract reads as follows : 1. The company recognizes the Union as the sole collective bar- gaining agency in respect to wages, hours and working condi- tions for all production employees-in the Folding, Solid Fibre, Corrugated, Wood Box Departments and Machine Shop, includ- ing Welders, Machinists, Millwrights and Helpers and Watch- men but excluding Superintendent, Assistant Superintendent, Office and Clerical employees, those who may be employed in a 86 N. L. R. B., No. 11: 59 60 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD confidential or technical capacity, and Supervisors as defined in Section 2 (11) of the National Labor Relations Act as -amended. 2. It is mutually understood and agreed that this contract applies to the Union Shop operated by the Employer, and that the jurisdiction of this contract extends over all employees in the bargaining unit as covered by Paragraph 1 of this section. A union shop shall be understood to mean such as is made up of employees who are members of this union. The Petitioner contends that Section I of the contract points to an oral union-security agreement between the Employer and the Inter- venor, which in the absence of a UA election, renders the contract illegal and not a bar to a determination of representatives. The Em- ployer and Intervenor allege that they have no union-security agree- ment and that the contract sections have no meaning. They deny that these sections constitute a union-security provision. The alleged union-security provisions of the contract are highly ambiguous. It is not clear from a reading of the contract whether the parties actually conditioned employment upon membership in the Intervenor or simply referred to the fact that the Intervenor was the recognized bargaining representative in the plant. Under these circumstances, we find it necessary to look to the evidence in order to determine the intent of the parties.' The record discloses : (1) that not all employees are members of the Intervenor; (2) that no effort has been made by the Employer to discharge nonmember employees; (3) that no union dues are deducted from the employees' pay; and (4) that one of the contract negotiators testified that the clauses were meaningless. Upon the basis of the foregoing facts and upon the entire record in the case, we are persuaded that the parties to this contract did not execute a union-security agreement. Ac- cordingly, we find that the contract herein constitutes a bar to an election at this time. We shall therefore dismiss the petition without prejudice, however, to a new petition timely filed. ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition filed herein be, and it hereby is, dismissed. MEMBER REYNOLDS took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Order. 1 We would distinguish the instant case from Matter of C. Hager t Sone Hinge Manu- facturing Company, 80 N. L. R. B. 163, on the facts. In the Hager case, and cases follow- ing that case , the union-security provisions were clearly and unambiguously spelled out. Under those circumstances it would have been improper to consider parole evidence in deter- mining the intent of the parties.