The Sperry Corp.

I SPERRY GYROSCOPE COMPANY 877 SPERRY GYROSCOPE COMPANY, DivisION OF THE SPERRY CORPORATION and LocAL 450, INTERNATIONAL UNION OF ELECTRICAL , RADIO AND MACHINE WORKERS, CIO, PETITIONER. Case No. 2-RC-4259. March 28, 1958 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 Seymour Goldstein, 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-mem- ber panel [Chairman Herzog and. Members Houston and Styles]. Upon the' entire record in this case,2 the Board finds : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. * - 2. The labor organizations involved claim' to represent employees of the Employer. ' 3. The question concerning representation The' Employer and the Intervenor 3 urge as a bar to a present deter- mination of representatives a collective bargaining agreement be- tween them, effective August 1, 1950, and to remain in force until June 15, 1953. The' Petitioner contends that this contract is not a bar because, among other things, Article III of the contract con- tains unlawful union security provisions. Article III of the contract in question provides, insofar as is rele- vant here, that : A. All employees who are now or who hereafter become mem- bers of the Union shall continue to remain members of the Union in good standing as a term and condition of employment. B. All present employees who have not completed their respec- tive probationary periods and all employees hired after the exe- cution of the agreement shall, not later than the expiration of - I The Intervenor contends that the hearing officer erred in refusing the request of counsel to exclude witnesses and in striking testimony adduced by the Intervenor that it had obtained cards from the Employees reasserting their interest in and desire to continue to be represented by, the Intervenor. As both rulings relate to the so-called "schism" issue, and as our decision herein is not predicated on that issue , it is evident that the parties could not have been prejudiced by these rulings and we therefore need not decide whether the rulings were correct. 2 The Employer's request for oral argument is denied because the record and briefs, In our opinion, adequately present the issues and the positions of the parties. 3 International 'Molders and Foundry Workers Union of North America, AFL , and Local No. 87, International Molders and Foundry Workers Union of North America, AFL. hereinafter jointly called "Intervenor." 98 NLRB No. 138. r 878 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD their respective probationary periods, make application for mem- bership in the Union, join the Union, pay to the Union their initi- ation fees and dues as of the date of their hiring and shall there- after remain members of the Union in good standing as a term and, condition of employment.. (Emphasis. added.) It is clear from the underscored phrase in Clause B, above, that under the terms of this union-security provision employees, although not required to join the Union until after the completion of a 60-day probationary period, were required as a condition of continued em- ployment to pay dues, upon joining , as of the date they were hired. The Board has held, with court approval, that the Act does not sanction contracts which require as a condition of employment that employees pay past union dues which accrued at a time when there was no contractual obligation to maintain membership in the union, and that the discharge of employees pursuant to such a provision violates Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.' Under_ the circumstances, consistent with established Board policy that a contract which con- t.ravene;;,the,basic,.polibies. of, the Act in the reepectsnoted may- neit'r• serve as a bar to a present determination of representatives,5 we find that the existing contract betwen the Employer and the Intervenor, is no bar to this proceeding." 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. The appropriate unit : In accordance with the agreement of the parties, we find that the following employees of the Employer constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act: Alfemployees of the Employer in the foul dry'''of` its plant; at Great Neck, Long Island, New York, including foundry journeymen, foundry apprentices, journeyman helpers, squeezer machine molders and trainees, sand blasters, casting cleaners, casting straighteners, heat treaters (foundry), furnace men (furnace tenders, pourers), laborers (sand muller operators, shakeout men, and core oven op- * International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (Luebke ), 92 NLRB 968, enfd. 194 F. 2d 689 (C. A. 7), where the Board, with court approval , found a similar clause requiring retroactive payment of dues no defense to the discharge of an employee. See also Monsanto Chemical Company, 97 NLRB 517; New York Shipbuilding Corporation, 89 NLRB 1446 ; Colonic Frbre Company v N. L. R. B., 1.63 F. 2d 65 (C. A. 5), enfg. 69 NLRB 589 and 71 NLRB 354. 5 See C. Hager & Sons hinge Mfg. Co , 80 NLRB 163.' As we have found, for the reasons herein stated, that the contract in question is no bar, we find it unnecessary to consider the Petitioner's contentions with respect to the alleged schism issue. SAN DIEGO GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY 879 erators), excluding all other employees, professional employees, non- hourly personnel, watchmen, guards, foremen, and all other super- visors. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this volume.] SAN DIEGO GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY and COSBY M. NEWSOM. Case No. 21-CA-1029. March 31, 1952 Decision and Order On September 18, 1951, Trial Examiner Howard Myers issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a sup- porting brief. The Board' has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner, with the following additions and modifications : The Trial Examiner has found, and we agree, that Complainant Newsom's discharge was violative of Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the Act. In reaching this conclusion, unlike the Trial Examiner, we have considered, certain work records of Newsom's which were introduced in evidence by the Respondent in support of its contention that Newsome's work was unsatisfactory. These records consist of standard forms prepared by the Respond- ent for use by its instrument technicians in conducting tests on gener- ators, turbines, boilers, and other equipment in the Respondent's I Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three -member panel (Chairman Herzog and Members Murdock and Styles.] 2 The Intermediate Report contains an inadvertent error which is hereby corrected. In concluding that Hathaway , immediately after his conference with Nobel , decided to dis- charge Newsom, the Trial Examiner states, "It thus follows that what Hathaway learned about Newsom at the January 15th meeting with the station chiefs, Kalins and Warden, played no part in Hathaway's determination to discharge Newsom, . . . The date of this meeting;. correctly set out elsewhere in the Intetinediafe Repott , was January 30, not January 15, 1951. 08 NLRB No. 146.