Archer-Daniels-Midland Co.

ARCHER-DANIELS-MIDLAND COMPANY 647 We find therefore that the current contract between the Intervenor and the Employer was, at the time of the filing of the petition, entirely lawful on its face. As the petition was filed long before expiration of the contract, the agreement is a bar to this proceeding. Accord- ingly, we shall dismiss the petition. Order IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition filed herein be, and it hereby is, dismissed. ARCHER-DANIELS-MIDLAND COMPANY and Louis J. STANISLOWSKI, ET AL., PETITIONERS and LOCAL 182, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GRAIN MILL ERs, AFL. Case No. 18-RD-59. December 07, 1951 Decision and Direction of Election Upon a decertification petition duly filed, a hearing was held before Clarence A. Meter, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Members Houston, Reynolds, and Styles]. 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 Petitioners, employees of the Employer,'. assert that the Union is no longer the bargaining representative, as defined in Section 9 (a) of the Act, of the employees designated in the petition.2 The Union is a labor organization currently recognized by the Em- ployer ag the exclusive bargaining representative of the employees of the Employer designated in the petition. 3. The Union contends that its existing contract with the Employer, which extends from July 1, 1950, to July 1, 1952, and for yearly periods thereafter, subject to a 60-day automatic renewal clause, constitutes a bar. We do not agree. IIn addition to Stanislowski , employees Charles G. Anderson and Frank Dolney are Petitioners herein. 2 At the hearing, a question was raised as to whether the Petitioners are "fronting" for the United Mine Workers , a labor organization not in compliance with the Act . However, Petitioner Stanislowski testified , without contradiction , that he himself secured the signatures on the documents submitted to authorize the petition in this case , and that he had no conversation with any representative of the Mine Workers concerning rep- resentation of employees of the Employer, or the filing of the instant petition . As there is no persuasive evidence to the contrary , we find , on the record now before us , that the Petitioners are not acting as a "front" for a noncomplying union. See Knife River Coal Mining Company, 96 NLRB 1. 97 NLRB No. 94. 648 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The contract contains the following provisions in Article I, Sec- tion D : All Employees covered by this Agreement shall be and remain members of the Union in good standing for the life of this Agree- ment. The Company shall have the right to hire Employees, but the Company agrees that all new Employees shall apply for Union membership upon completion of (30) calendar days of employ- ment. The Union Shop provisions of this Contract shall become effective at such time as the Union has carried out the requirements of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947. (Emphasis supplied.) Because the union-shop provisions, which became effective on or about December 13, 1950,3 fail to extend to employees who were not members of the Union on the date these provisions became effective, the statutory 30-day period from such effective date allowed for becom- ing union members, such provisions exceed the limited form of union security permitted by Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act 4 We therefore find that the contract is not a bar to a present determination of representatives. - 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. Substantially in accord with the agreement of the parties, we find that all production and maintenance employees at the Employer's Twin City A and Commander elevators, Minneapolis, Minnesota, excluding office and professional employees, guards, superintendents, assistant superintendents, foremen, and all other supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this volume.] 3A union security authorization was issued on or about December 13, 1950, Case No. 18-UA-2002. 4 See Charles A. Krause Milling Co, 97 NLRB 536. CALERA MINING COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL UNION MINE, MILL AND SMELTER WORKERS, PETITIONER . Case No. 19-RC--835. December 18, 1951 Decision and Direction of Election Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Daniel J. Harrington, hear- 97 NLRB No. 96.