American Yearbook Co.

JOSTEN ENGRAVING COMPANY 49 WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner restrain or coerce employees of ALASKA STEAMSHIP COMPANY., its successors or assigns , in the exercise of their rights to engage in, or to refrain from engaging in, any or all of the concerted activities guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, WE WILL, make whole Horace W. Underwood for any loss of pay suffered as a result of our unlawful discrimination against him. AMERICAN RADIO ASSOCIATION, CIO, Labor Organization. Dated ---------------------------- By --------------------------------- (Representative ) ( Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof , and must not be altered , defaced, or covered by any other material. JOSTEN ENGRAVING COMPANY, D/B/A AMERICAN YEARBOOK COMPANY and AMALGAMATED LITHOGRAPHERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL UNION No. 10 (CIO), PETITIONER. Case No. 18-RC-1075. February 11, 1952 Decision and Order Upon ,j petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Erwin A. Peterson, hearing officer. 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 Act. 2. The Petitioner and the Intervenor, International Jewelry Work- ers Union, Local No. 17, AFL, are labor organizations claiming to represent certain employees of the Employer. 3. The Employer and the Intervenor assert that their current 1950 contract constitutes a bar to this proceeding. The Petitioner contends that the contract is not a bar, on the grounds: (a) That it does not cover the employees herein sought; and (b) that it contains an illegal union-security clause. Applicability of the Contract to American Yearbook Employees Petitioner seeks to represent a group of lithograph employees who work in the American Yearbook division of the Employer.' The Petitioner contends that the current contract does not cover any employees in this division, because the name of this division is not ' The American Yearbook division of American Yearbook Company, a new project of the Josten Engraving Company, was established in the spring of 1950, some 6 months prior to the current contract, executed in August 1950 This division is engaged in the production of high school and college yearbooks, and it draws upon the same market for the sale of its products as its patent company. the Josten Manufacturing Company, -.vhich manu- factures high school and college jewelry. 98 NLRB No. 3. 50 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD specifically set forth in the contract and because no wage rates per- taining to job classifications in the division are incorporated in the contract. Article 1 Section 5 of the current contract provides that the Inter- venor shall be the sole and exclusive bargaining agent for the employees- in the printing and engraving business conducted by the Josten- Engraving Company, in addition to the employees of the jewelry busi- ness conducted by the Josten Manufacturing Company. It is also, clear that the Intervenor has represented the Yearbook division employees in the processing of grievances, that these employees have been members of the Intervenor's policy-making committee, and that they have received all the benefits of the contract in the same manner as the other employees. Furthermore, the Petitioner concedes that at least one provision of the contract, a provision relating to part-time employees, was adopted with specific reference to the employees of the Yearbook division where, alone, the part-time workers were involved. On the question of wage rates, the evidence shows that the evaluation of the job classifications in this new division was then in progress, and that pending such evaluation it was customary to consider the new jobs as falling into established labor grades, for which wage rates were negotiated. On the basis of the above facts, we find that the contentions of the Petitioner are without merit. Accordingly, we find that the current contract covers the employees of the Yearbook division. Legality of the Union-Security Provision In 1946 the Intervenor was certified by the State of Minnesota, Division of Conciliation, as the exclusive bargaining representative for all employees of the parent and subsidiary companies. The first contract, which was signed on May 9, 1946, contained a union-shop clause, requiring all employees to become and remain members of the union after completion of the probationary 12-month period of em- ployment. This provision also appeared in the contract executed June 26, 1947. On August 3, 1948, after union-shop authorization had been secured in accordance with the amended Act, a new contract was executed. This contract contained the following union-security provision : Section 2 (2) All employees who have completed the probationary period established by Section 11 of Article V of this Agreement 2 shall make application to and become members of the Union, and shall thereafter maintain their membership in good standing in accord- s As in the previous contracts, this period was 1 year. JOSTEN ENGRAVING, COMPANY + 511 ance with the Union's Constitution and By-laws, as a condition of employment. During the first ninety (90) days of the probationary period provided for in Article V, Section 11 of this agreement proba- tionary employees shall not be eligible for membership in the Union. Neither the Union nor any member shall solicit any membership or application therefor or any money from any pro- bationary employee during the first ninety (90) days of this probationary period. During the probationary period the Union agrees that it will in no way require, attempt to require, or bring pressure upon any probationary employee to join or become a Union member or to obtain permission or approval to work for the Union or its members. The applicability and enforcement of the foregoing provision of this agreement as to required membership in the Union shall be effective only in accordance with the Labor Management Relations. Act of 1947. In 1949, and again on August 4, 1950, the parties extended the 1948 contract including the above union-security clause, except that in each case the last clause, quoted above, was omitted. The Petitioner contends that this union-security clause as incor- porated in the 1950 agreement did not give employees who had not become union members on August 4, 1950, the 30-day grace period required by Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. In other words, it argues that although probationary employees had worked for 1 year without the necessity of becoming union members, they must nevertheless be granted the additional 30 days following the effective date of the contract. The Employer and Intervenor urge that the union-security clause is valid on the following grounds : (1) The 1948 contract, the first following the union-shop authorization, accorded old employees the required grace period by virtue of the last clause of the union- security provision and satisfied the requirement as to new employees by giving them 12 months before they were required to become mem- bers of the union; (2) the 1949 and 1950 agreements provided the same exemption for new employees; (3) in any case the Act requires only one grace period for old employees and does not require additional grace periods every time a contract is renewed or extended. In the recent Krause case 3 we held that, under a union-shop clause, a grace period need not be accorded to old employees who already were members of the union on the effective date of the contract. That principle, when applied to the instant case, establishes the legality of the union-security provision as to those employees who were members of the Union on August 4, 1950, the effective date of the current con- 8 Charles A Krause Milling Co, 97 NLRB 536. 52 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD tract. There remains the question whether employees hired between August 4 and September 4, 1949, and who were therefore not required to become and were not union members until the corresponding period in 1950, were nevertheless entitled to an additional 30 days after August 4, 1950. We do not believe that Section 8 (a) (3) requires such additional grace period to old employees under the facts of this case. The cur- rent contract was a renewal of the 1949 and 1948 contracts, the latter being the first agreement following the union-shop authorization. Under the 1948 contract all new employees were required to become members only after 12 months of employment. All old employees were allowed their required grace period, by virtue of the clause pro- viding that the requirement as to union membership should be effective only in accordance with the Labor Management Relations Act. The 1949 contract renewed the union-security requirement of the 1948 con- tract, except that the deferring clause therein was omitted. The cur- rent contract of 1950 4 is a renewal of the 1949 contract. The only employees covered by the present contract who possibly were not union members on August 4, 1950, the date of execution, and were obligated to join the Union in less than 30 days from August 4, were those who had been hired a year before, between August and September 4, 1949. But such employees had already been afforded much more than 30 days before coming under the contractual obligation to join the Union. A reasonable construction of the statute seems to us to lead to the conclusion that, under the present circumstances, the grace period requirements have been met. To hold otherwise would afford the employees 12 months' representation for 11 months' dues, and would thus permit "free riders," the avoidance of which was clearly in- tended by the statute.5 Accordingly, without deciding what the law would require in a different situation and confining the Board's de- cision to the present circumstances, we find that the current contract between the Employer and the Intervenor constitutes a bar to the present determination of representatives. We shall therefore dismiss the petition e Order IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition be, and it hereby is, dismissed. MEMBER HOUSTON took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Order. ' The 1950 contract expires July 1, 1953. a Charles A. Krause Milling Co , supra. e The Employer and the Intervenor, in addition to their contentions that the current contract is a bar, claim that the unit sought is inappropriate. Because of our holding herein that the contract constitutes a bar, we find it unnecessary to consider the unit issue.