Industrial Raw Materials Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsSep 13, 1954

109 N.L.R.B. 1295 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

INDUSTRIAL RAW MATERIALS CORP. 1295 ,employees at the Haines Building at this time, but shall first ascertain the desire of these employees as expressed in the election directed herein. We shall direct an election among the following employees : all ware- house employees at the Employer's Haines Building plant at Elkhart, Indiana, excluding office clerical employees, professional employees, guards, and all supervisors as defined in the Act. If a majority of the employees in the voting group selects the Peti- tioner, they will be taken to have indicated their desire to constitute a separate appropriate unit and the Regional Director conducting the election is instructed to issue a certification of representatives to the Petitioner for such unit, which the Board, under such circumstances, finds to be appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining. On the other hand, if a majority of the employees in the voting group vote for the Intervenor, they will be taken to have indicated their desire to be- come part of the existing unit currently represented by the Intervenor, find the Regional Director will issue a certification of results of election to that effect. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] MEMBER MURDOCK took no part in the consideration of the above De- cision and Direction of Election. INDUSTRIAL RAW MATERIALS CORP. and LOCAL 810, STEEL, METALS, AL- LOYS & HARDWARE, FABRICATORS & WAREHOUSEMEN, AFFILIATED WITFL INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN & HELPERS OF AMERICA, AFL, PETITIONER. Case No. 2-RC-6771. September 13,195 f Decision and Order Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before I. L. Broadwin, hear- ing 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 labor organizations involved claim to represent certain em- ployees of the Employer. 3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa- tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 109 NLRB No. 42. 1296 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, for the following reasons: The Employer and the Intervenor, Amalgamated Union Local 649, United Auto Workers, AFL, contend that an agreement executed be- tween them on April 16,1954, is a bar. The Petitioner argues that the agreement does not preclude a present determination of representatives because (1) the document is not a complete and final collective-bar- gaining contract, and (2) in any event, the contract was executed after the Petitioner made its claim to representation on April 20, 1954. On March 26, 1952, the Employer entered into a collective-bargain- ing agreement with District 50, United Mine Workers of America, covering the employees in the unit here sought by the Petitioner. That agreement expired on March 22, 1954. On March 24, 1954, the Inter- venor, having previously obtained signed authorizations from the em- ployees to act as their bargaining representative, executed a recognition agreement with the Employer, and on April 14, 1954, the parties commenced negotiations for a new contract. Those negotiations culminated in a contract dated April 16,1954, which the Employer and the Intervenor here assert as a bar. The April 16 contract set forth various provisions concerning wages, hours, and other conditions of employment which were to be formalized iii a collective-bargaining agreement to be executed at a later date. Some of these provisions, as, for example, those regarding wage increases, welfare find payments, seniority, grievance procedures, and the term of the contract, were changes upon which the parties had final- ly agreed,which departed from similar clauses in the recently expired UMWA agreement. Other provisions, such as those pertaining to hours of employment, overtime rates, holidays, and vacations, were to be identical with those which "presently exist," a reference to parallel provisions which obtained in the UMWA document. Finally, the April 16 agreement provided for arbitration of any disputes con- cerning wages and hours which might arise during specified reopening periods. On the basis of the foregoing, and the entire record in this proceed- ing, we find that the April 16 agreement, embodying as it does the major substantive terms and conditions of employment governing the Employer's employees, constitutes a sufficient and comprehensive written understanding between the Employer and the Intervenor to stabilize bargaining relations for the employees concerned.' Accord- ingly, we find no merit in the Petitioner's argument that the April 16 document lacks the completeness and finality of a collective-bargain- ing contract which may be asserted as a bar. With respect to the Petitioner's alternate contention that the con- tract cannot bar an election because of its untimely execution with 1 See The Carborundum Company, 78 NLRB 91. ALEO MANUFACTURING COMPANY 1297 respect to the Petitioner's filing of its representation claim on April 20, 1954, the record discloses that the Employer and the Intervenor commenced negotiations on April 14, 1954. On April 15, after agree- ment had been reached on all the contractual provisions, the Em- ployer's counsel drafted the contract for signature of the parties. The Employer's counsel and the Intervenor's representative testified at the hearing that an original and a duplicate of the document were formally executed in the offices of the Employer on April 16, and that the Intervenor's representative procured additional copies which he subsequently distributed to the employees for signature. However, the Petitioner produced as a witness an employee who testified that on April 21 he, along with certain other employees, was requested to affix his signature to three copies of the contract, and that at the time he signed the documents the signatures of the contracting parties did not appear thereon. In view of the foregoing testimony, we are persuaded that the con- tract in question was in fact executed on April 16, 1954, and that the Petitioner's claim, made on April 20, was not timely. The original contract, introduced into evidence in this proceeding, contained the signatures of the contracting parties alone. A copy of that contract which the Petitioner's witness averred he signed on April 21 was also received in evidence. In our opinion, this witness' testimony that no other signatures appeared on the document which he signed is cor- roborative of the testimony of the Employer's counsel and the Inter- venor's representative that the original document was executed by the parties on April 16, and that copies were later distributed to the employees for their signature. Accordingly, we conclude that the Petitioner's petition, filed on April 21, 1954, is barred by an existing contract between the Employer and the Intervenor. We shall there- fore dismiss the petition. [The Board dismissed the petition.] MEMBERS MURDOCK and RODGERS took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Order. ALSO MANUFACTURING COMPANY and TEXTILE WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, CIO, AND ITS LOCAL 603, TWUA, CIO,' PETITIONER and UNITED TEXTILE WORKERS OF AMERICA, AND ITS LOCAL UNION 603, UTWA, AFL. Case No. 11-RC-608. September 13, 1954 Decision and Order Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Harold X. Summers, 1 Local 603 , TWUA, CIO, was added as party petitioner at the hearing without objection. 109 NLRB No. 163.