Affiliated Bakers Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 29, 1952

101 N.L.R.B. 1484 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

1484 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
on union activities to his employees on company time and property
may well destroy the laboratory atmosphere which the Board must
maintain in its election proceedings, if lie denies a union's request
for a similar forum .2
Accordingly, we shall adopt the Regional Director's finding that
the Employer interfered with the employees' freedom of choice in the
selection of a bargaining representative, and shall order that the
election of July 24, 1952, be set aside. Further, we shall direct the
Regional Director to conduct a new election at such time as he deems
appropriate.
Order
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the election of July 24, 1952, be, and it
hereby is, set aside.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this proceeding be remanded to the Re-
gional Director for the Eleventh Region for the purposes of conduct-
ing a new election at such times as he deems the circumstances permit
a free choice of a bargaining representative.
2 The Muter Company, 101 NLRB 287 ; John Irving Stores of Chicago, Inc., et at., 101
NLRB 82: Onondaga Pottery Company, 100 NLRD 1143; The Hills Brothers Company,
100 NLRB 964; Metropolitan Auto Parts , Incorporated, 99 NLRB 401.
AFFILIATED BAKERS CORP. and LOCAL 262, UNITED BAKERY, CONFEC-
TIONERY, CANNERY, PACKING AND FOOD SERVICE WORKERS OF NEW
JERSEY, RWDSU, CIO, PETITIONER . Case No. 2-RC--214. Decem-
ber 29, 1952
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 Max Dauber, 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 [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
Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent employees
of the Employer.
3. The Petitioner filed its petition with the Board on October 1,
1952. The Intervenor, Local 84, Bakers & Confectionery Workers
International Union, AFL, and the Employer assert that this peti-
101 NLRB No. 219.
AFFILIATED BAKERS CORP. 1485
tion is barred by a contract previously entered into between them on
September 1, 1952, to remain in effect until August 31, 1953. The
Petitioner, however, contends that this contract is a premature ex-
tension of a preexisting contract of which the terminal date was
February 1, 1953.
The Employer, which operates a plant in Newark, New Jersey, is
engaged in the baking and distribution of cheese cake. During its
busy season it employs from 35 to 48 persons.' Having been certified
by the Board as a result of a consent election in December 1949 for a
unit of production and maintenance employees, the Intervenor shortly
afterwards concluded a contract with the Employer to terminate
February 1, 1951. This was followed by a second contract which ran
from February 1, 1951, to February 1, 1952. After some unproductive
negotiations for a third contract, the Intervenor wrote the Employer
on February 25, 1952, offering :
We will extend the contract for another year with the provision
that we meet in the month of August, 1952 prior to your company's
resuming baking for the season, and, if we do not come to a suc-
cessful conclusion, that the extension is null and void and that the
Union would have a right to strike.
To this the Employer replied on March 3, 1952:
We wish to . . . express appreciation for extending our pres-
ent contract for another year; with the understanding that we will
negotiate provisions during the month of August 1952, for the
balance of the contract.
As contemplated in this correspondence, negotiations took place
the following August. These led to the execution of the September 1,
1952, contract, alleged as a bar. This contract is identical with the
preceding agreement in all respects except wage rates and the terminal
date, which was extended to August 31, 1953.
We believe that the exchange of correspondence in effect extended
the second contract for a period of 1 year, namely, from February 1,
1952, to February 1, 1953. It is true that this February 1952-53 con-
tract also provided for midterm negotiations and for cancellation of
the contract if those negotiations failed. But this condition did not
occur. It follows that the February 1952-53 contract was a bar on
September 1, 1952, when it was extended midway in its term by the
contract entered into on that date. This being so, the extension was
premature; 2 and the terminal date of the February 1952-53 contract
' Production begins in September and continues through March each year. During the
off-season only several maintenance employees and an office staff remain at work.
' Cushman Sons, Inc., 88 NLRB 121, 122-123.
1486 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
remained the significant terminal date for bar purposes .$ Because this
date will arrive in less than 2 months from the date of this decision,
no bar exists to a present determination of representatives .4
4. Pursuant to agreement of the parties, we find that the following
employees constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act:
All production and maintenance employees at the Employer's
Newark, New Jersey, plant, including receiving and shipping employ-
ees, but excluding drivers, office clericals, guards, watchmen, profes-
sional employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
8 Republic Steel Corp ., 84 NLRB 483.
4 John Deere Plow Works , 94 NLRB 1286. In view of our decision herein that the
September 1, 1952, contract is a premature extension , we find it unnecessary to consider
the Petitioner ' s other grounds of attack upon that contract 's effectiveness for bar purposes.
JOSEPH E . COTE, D/B/A J. E. COTE, AND BROOK FARM FOODS, INC., AND
EDOUARD COTE and BAKERY & SALES DRIVERS & HELPERS LOCAL UNION
No. 686, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS,
WAREHOUSEMEN & HELPERS OF AMERICA, A. F. OF L. Case No. 1-
CA-1015. December 30, 1952
Decision and Order
On March 14, 1952, Trial Examiner Stephen S. Bean issued his In-
termediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondents J. E. Cote and Brook Farm Foods, Inc., had engaged in
and were engaging in certain unfair labor practices in violation of
Section 8 (a) (1), (3), and (5) of the Act, and recommending that
they jointly and severally cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report
attached hereto. The Trial Examiner further found that the Re-
spondent Edouard Cote had not engaged in unfair labor practices and
recommended that the complaint be dismissed as to him. Thereafter,
the Respondents J. E. Cote and Brook Farm Foods, Inc., filed excep-
tions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief; and the Gen-
eral Counsel and the Union filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report,
the former filing a memorandum in support of his exceptions.
The Board 1 has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner at the
I 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 Murdock and Peterson].
101 NLRB No. 222.