Reading Tube Corp.

In the Matter of READING TUBE CORPORATION, EMPLOYER and STEEL WORKERS FEDERATION, PETITIONER - Case No. 4-RC-519.-Decided December 9, 1949 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a petition duly filed , a hearing was held before John H. Garver, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hear- ing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three -member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Murdock]. 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 labor organizations involved claim to represent certain employees of the Employer. 3. The Intervenor contends that its current contract with the Em- ployer is a bar to the present proceeding . The contract was originally executed on December 1, 1946, and was thereafter extended , in Novem- ber 1948, until June 1, 1950. The original contract provides that : All employees employed after December 26, 1946, shall be re- quired to become members of the Union at the end of the thirty ( 30) day probationary period. A supplemental agreement dated November 6, 1948, provides that: The Union agrees that the Company shall not be required to vio- late existing State or Federal Laws in order to comply with the provisions of the contract pertaining to Union Security. There has been no union-security election pursuant to Section 9 (e) (1) of the Act among the Employer's employees. The Intervenor was therefore not authorized to include a union-security clause* in the 1948 renewal agreement? The Employer and the Intervenor claim 1 C. Hager h Sons Hinge Manufacturing Company, SO NLRB 163. 87 NLRB No. 86. 550 READING TUBE CORPORATION 551 that the illegality of the union-shop provisions is cured by the terms of the supplemental agreement. As we recently held, however, an unauthorized union-shop provision remains operative despite such a modifying clause until and unless an authorized tribunal passes upon its exercise in a particular instance 2 Accordingly, we find that the contract herein is not a bar to a present determination of representa- tives, and the Intervenor's motion to dismiss this proceeding on that ground is therefore denied. We find that a 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. 4. In accordance with the agreement of the parties, we find that all the production and maintenance employees at the Employer's Reading, Pennsylvania, plant, excluding executives, foremen, assist- ant foremen, salaried and clerical employees, guards, and supervisors 3 constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining, within'the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. DIRECTION OF ELECTION As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining with the Employer, an election by secret ballot shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later than 30 days from the date of this Direction, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Region in which this case was heard, and subject to Sections 203.61 and 203.62 of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations, among the employees in the unit found appropriate in paragraph numbered 4, above, who were employed during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of this Direction of Election, including employees who did not work during said pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation or temporarily laid off, but excluding those employees who have since quit or been discharged for cause and have not been rehired or reinstated prior to the date of the election, and. also ex- cluding employees on strike who are not entitled to reinstatement, to determine whether they desire to be represented, for purposes of collective bargaining, by Steel Workers Federation, or by United Steelworkers of America, CIO, or by neither. 2 Reading Hardware Corporation, 85 NLRB 610, in which we said, "In the absence of a specific clause expressly deferring application of the union-shop provision , we believe that this clause can only be construed to mean that unless and until a tribunal authorized to interpret and administer the law determines a particular discharge for non-membership in the Intervenor is unlawful, the union security provisions of the contract are fully effective." 3 This unit, consisting of about 250 employees , is the one covered by the current contract.