Henry & Allen, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 19, 1946

68 N.L.R.B. 724 (N.L.R.B. 1946)

In the Matter of HENRY & ALLEN, INC. and UNITED FARM EQUIPMENT
& METAL WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO
Case No. 3-R-1200.-Decided June 19, 1946
Messrs. E. H. Van Order and L. A. Green, of Auburn, N. Y., for
the Company.
Messrs. Peter Aversa and Neal Eastman, of Auburn, N. Y., for the
CIO.
Mr. Kenneth Wells, of Auburn, N. Y., for the AFL.
Mr. F. G. Dunn, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a petition duly filed by the United Farm Equipment & Metal
Workers of America, CIO, herein called the CIO, alleging that
a question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation
of employees of Henry & Allen, Inc., Auburn, New York, herein called
the Company, the National Labor Relations Board provided for an
appropriate 'hearing upon due notice before Francis X. Helgesen, Trial
Examiner. The hearing was held at Auburn, New York, on May 1, 1946.
The Company, the CIO, and the United Automobile Workers of
America, A. F. of L., herein called the AFL, who was permitted
to intervene by the Trial Examiner, appeared and participated. All
parties were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and
cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues.
At the hearing, the AFL moved to dismiss the petition. The Trial
Examiner reserved ruling on this motion for the Board. For reasons
hereinafter stated, the motion is hereby granted. The Trial Examiner's
rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error- and are
hereby affirmed. All parties were afforded opportunity to file briefs with
the Board.
68 N. L. R. B., No. 97.
724
HENRY do ALLEN, INC. 725
Upon the entire record in the case , the Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Henry & Allen, Inc., is a New York corporation having its principal
office and plant in the city of Auburn, New York, where it is engaged
in the manufacture and sale of drop forgings, small tools and agricultural
spares. During the year 1945, the Company purchased raw materials
consisting principally of steel, malleable gray iron, wood, brass, and
miscellaneous parts and supplies valued in excess of $100,000, of which
approximately 30 percent was purchased from sources outside the
State of New York. During the same period, the Company sold finished
products in an amount exceeding $800,000, of which 75 percent repre-
sented sales outside the State of New York.
The Company admits that it is engaged in commerce within the mean-
ing of the National Labor Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
United Farm Equipment & Metal Workers of America is a labor
organization, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations,
admitting to membership employees of the Company.
United Automobile Workers of America, is a labor organization,
affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, admitting to member-
ship employees of the Company.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The CIO notified the Company by registered letter on March 5,
1946, that it represented a majority of its production and maintenance
employees, and requested recognition as their bargaining representative.
The Company did not reply to this request. At the hearing it took the
position that, in view of the earlier certification of the AFL, it could
not recognize the CIO until that organization had been certified by
the Board.
Following certification by the Board on November 5, 1943,1 the AFL
entered into a contract with the Company. This contract was to con-
tinue in effect for 1 year from April 13, 1944, and thereafter from
year to year in the absence of 30 days' notice by, either party to the
other of a desire to terminate on any anniversary date. In 1945 the
contract was allowed to renew itself automatically; similarly, neither
1 52 N. L. R. B. 972.
726 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
party gave notice of a desire to terminate it prior to March 13, 1946,
the most recent automatic renewal date. The CIO did not file its
petition herein until March 18, subsequent to the automatic renewal of
the contract and more than 10 days after assertion of the CIO's
informal claim. The AFL contends that its contract is a bar to a
present determination of representatives; the CIO takes a contrary
position based on the timeliness of its informal claim.
In the recent General Electric X-Ray decision,2 the Board departed
from the former practice of according equal weight to informal claims
and to formal petitions in determining that subsequently executed agree-
ments do not constitute a bar, holding that when a petition is filed more
than 10 days after the assertion of a bare claim, and no extenuating
circumstances appear, an otherwise valid agreement which is executed
in the interval shall bar a determination of representatives. We must
here determine whether to apply a like rule where the more than 10
days interval sees the automatic renewal of an existing valid contract.
The principal consideration underlying the General Electric X-Ray
decision was our desire to free lawful bargaining relations from the
restraint and harassment occasioned by dilatory rival claims of repre-
sentation by requiring the prompt filing of a formal petition, thus
subjecting the claim to the Board's administrative process and attendant
risk of dismissal. Although automatic renewal of an existing agreement
leaves the parties in somewhat different posture, since no delay is im-
posed upon negotiations, the administration of the agreement which the
parties permissibly have allowed to renew itself is thrown in doubt and
clouded by uncertainty during the pendency of the rival claim ; thus the
underlying consideration applies with equal force. Continuation of our
earlier practice of allowing a claimant indefinitely to postpone perfection
of its timely but informal claim would encourage organizational activity
at the beginning of the renewed contract term when the contracting
parties are entitled to quiet enjoyment of their stabilized relationship,
rather than in the period preceding the automatic renewal date when
the employees are free to change representatives. We have accordingly
decided to apply the rule of the General Electric X-Ray decision to
situations like the present, which involve renewal rather than execution
of agreements in the interval between the assertion of the rival claim
and the filing of the petition. We find, therefore, that inasmuch as the
CTO did not file its petition herein until more than 10 days after
presenting its claim of majority representation to the Company, the
agreement between the Company and the AFL, as automatically renewed
on March 13, 1946, constitutes a bar to a present determination of repre-
sentatives Accordingly, we shall dismiss the petition.
2 Matter of General Electric X-Ray Corporation, 67 N. L. R. B. 997.
HENRY & ALLEN, INC. 727
ORDER
Upon the basis of the above finding of facts, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the petition for investigation and
certification of representatives of employees of Henry & Allen, Inc.,
Auburn, New York, filed by United Farm Equipment & Metal Workers
of America, CIO, be, and it hereby is, dismissed.