Koenig Brothers, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 20, 1954

108 N.L.R.B. 304 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

304 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
KOENIG BROTHERS, INC., Petitioner and LUMBER AND SAW-
MILL WORKERS, LOCAL NO. 2405, AFL. Case No. 19-RM-
124. April 20, 1954
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Albert Gese,
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 labor organization involved claims to represent
employees of the Employer.
3. No 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, for the
following reasons:
The Employer and the Lumber and Sawmill Workers, Local
No. 2405, AFL, herein called the Union, are presently parties
to a collective-bargaining agreement . This agreement provides
that it "shall become effective November 25,1952, and shall re-
main in full force and effect until December 1, 1953, and from
year to year thereafter, until either party notifies the other in
writing of a desire to change, modify, or terminate this agree-
ment at least sixty (60) days prior to an annual termination
date....
By registered letter dated September 30, 1953, the Employer
advised the Union of its desire to terminate the contract. As
indicated by the registered postal return receipt, this letter was
received by the Union on October 2, 1953. The Union, by
correspondence with the Employer, maintained that the contract
had been automatically renewed because the Employer's notice
was not timely with respect to the terms of their agreement.
The Union urges the renewed contract as a bar to this proceed-
ing, while the Employer maintains that timely notice was given
to forestall automatic renewal of the contract.
The Board has strictly construed provisions which forestall
automatic renewal clauses . Thus the Board hasheldthat where
the existence or nonexistence of a contract bar depends upon the
giving of a timely notice, the timeliness of such notice depends
not upon the date of mailing but upon the date of receipt.' In the
absence of mitigating circumstances, z an untimely notice will
not prevent automatic renewal and the automatically renewed
contract will bar a subsequent petition.
In this case, the termination date - - the day preceding the first
day of the new contract term - -was November 30, 1953. Including
'See Belle-Moc, Inc., 81 NLRB 6.
2 Cf. Augat Bros. Inc., 97 NLRB 993; Evans Milling Company, 94 NLRB 1127.
108 NLRB No. 67.
CLAYTON & LAMBERT MANUFACTURING COMPANY 305
that day in the computation of the 60 days required by the con-
tract,3 the Mill B date, or day on which the automatic renewal
became operative , was October 2, 1953. The last day on which
notice to forestall automatic renewal could be effective was
October 1 , 1953.4 As notice was not received 'on or before Octo-
ber 1, 1953 , we find that the contract was automatically renewed.
The Employer urges that the Union , by its subsequent conduct,
waived the defect in the notice . The record discloses that in its
notice letter , the Employer indicated a willingness to meet with
the Union prior to December 1, 1953 , " to discuss our reasons
for the action . . . ." In its reply, the Union maintained that the
notice was not timely and that it would "defend by all means
available . . . all terms and conditions of the present working
agreement as well ' as the bargaining rights ...," but indicated
a willingness to meet and confer "for the purpose of negotiating
upon any changes to be proposed by either party to the working
agreement ." There is no indication that the Union at any time
thereafter abandoned its initial position.
In these circumstances , we view the Employer ' s September
30, 1953, letter and the Union ' s reply thereto as post-renewal
requests to negotiate changes, having no effect upon the renewed
contract as a bar to the petition herein.5 For the foregoing
reasons, we find that the contract , as automatically renewed,
is a bar to this proceeding. We shall therefore dismiss the
petition without prejudice to the filing of a new petition a reason-
able time before the automatic renewal date of the existing
contract.
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
3See Williams Laundry Company, et al., 97 NLRB 995; Golden Belt Manufacturing Com-
pany, 103 NLRB 1543, and cases cited therein.
4A notice which will forestall automatic renewal must be received prior to the "Mill B"
date. See Williams Laundry Company, supra p. 996.
5See Land O'Sun Dairies, Inc., 107 NLRB No. 253.
CLAYTON & LAMBERT MANUFACTURING COMPANY and
ELECTRICAL WORKERS UNION, LOCAL NO. 369,
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL
WORKERS, A. F. of L., Petitioner . Case No. 9-RC-2087.
April 20, 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 M.
Kennedy , hearing officer . The hearing officer's rulings made
108 NLRB No. 64.
339676 0 - 55 - 21