Reed Roller Bit Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 26, 1947

72 N.L.R.B. 927 (N.L.R.B. 1947)

In the Matter of REED ROLLER BIT COMPANY, EMPLOYER and INTERNA-
TIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, DISTRICT No. 37, LODGE No. 1303,
PETITIONER
Case No. 16-R-185¢.Decided February 06, 1947
Vinson, Elleins, Weems c6 Francis, by Mr. Leroy Seffers, and Messrs.
John Reno and James Wynne, of Houston, Tex., for the Employer.
Mr. Henry J. Murphy, of Fort Worth, Tex.,' and Messrs. A. H.
,Houser and H. A. Lucas, of Houston, Tex., for the Petitioner.
Messrs. Charles E. S,7with, L. S. Raindall, and H. 0. McCaskin, of
Houston, Tex., for the Intervenor.
Mr. Henry W. de Kozurian, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at Houston,
Texas, on December 5, 1946, before V. Lee McMahon, hearing officer.
The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free front preju-
dicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations
Board makes the following: .
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. TILE BUSINESS OF TILE EMPLOYER
Reed Roller Bit Company is a Texas corporation engaged in the
manufacture of oil well 'drilling tools and equipment. The Em-
ployer's plants in Houston, Texas, are solely involved in this proceed-
ing. The Employer annually purchases raw materials for its Houston,
Texas, plants, valued in excess of $500,000, approximately 90 percent
of which is shipped to the Employer from points outside the State of
Texas. The Employer annually manufactures finished products at its
Houston, Texas, plants, valued in excess of $500,000, approximately
75 percent of which is shipped to points outside the State of Texas.
The Employer admits and we find that it is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
72 N L. R. B, No 157 927
731242-47-vol 72-60
928 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The Petitioner is a labor organization, claiming to represent em-
ployees of the Employer.
United Steelworkers of America, Local 2083, herein called Inter-
venor, is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress of Industrial
Organizations, claiming to represent employees of the Employer.
III. TILE ALLEGED Q1JESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION -
We must decide whether a contract of 2 years' duration is a bar to
an election When it has been in effect for more than 1 year, although
the customary term of agreements in the industry in which the Em-
ployer is engaged is only 1 'ear.
On August 30, 1945, the Employer and the Intervenor made a con-
tract which provided that it was to remain in operation for 2 years.
On June 28, 1946, the Petitioner filed the petition in this proceeding.
Both the Employer and the Intervenor contend that their agreement,
which Will not expire until August 30, 1947, precludes a current
determination of representatives.
The problem of the contract bar Was presented to the Board early
in its history. In its first decisions, the Board held that a contract
for a term of 1 year, whose expiration date was not imminent, would
bar a determination of representatives,2 but that no contract which
had been in effect for more than 1 year could foreclose an election.3
On the basis of these decisions, the Board frequently found that a
2-year contract was no bar after it had been in operation more than
1 year.` It was also held, however, that a 2-year contract Which was
customary in the industry served to preclude a determination of repre-
sentatives, although it had already run for more than 1 year.5
1 On Febinary 11, 1946, the Eniplover cancelled the 1945 aareemcut alleging it hieach of
the "no-strike' clause bv'the Intervenor But on Mauch 16, 1946, the EniploIer and the
Inteivenor ieanstated the agreement with ceitan, amendments relating to wages We find
no merit in the Employer's contention that the petition should be di,uiis,ed because the
agreement now in effect between the Employer and the Inteivenor was executed on March
16, 1946, and should be considered as a 17-month agreement which has not yet been in
effect for 1 year Acceptance of the I+Imployei'5 contention would enable the pasties to a.
collective bargaining agreement to execute contiactc of adnuttedll unrcaconside duration,
and then toreclose it deteammation of reinesentatlves duung the life of the contract liv
repeated cancellations and reinstatements, of the agieem ent For the purposes of tine pio-
ceeding, therefore, we shall con'ider the contiact now in eflect betIIeeu the Emp1o}er and
the Intervenoi as a 2-lea r agreement, executed on August 30, 1945
2 See Matter of National Sugar Refining Company of New Jersey. 10 N L It B 1410
S See Matter of Columbia Broadcasting Si stem, 8 N L R B 508
"Matter of Lewis Steel Pioducts Corporation 24 N L It B 739 Platter of Kakn-,C
Fcldnsan, Tnc, 30 N L It B 294 Matter of Los Angeles SArnbu^ldrnq and Dray Doc/ Cono-
pany, 40 N L R B 1150 , Matter of George L Madden, 42 N L It B 885.
c Matter of Owens-Illuaoas Pacific Coast Company, 36 N L It B 990 , Matter of Amerman
Finishing Company, 50 N L It B 313, Muttei of West Vugnua Coal J Coke Corporation,
58 N L It B 1
REED ROLLER BIT COMPANY 929
Beginning in 1945, the Board modified previous decisions and ruled
that a contract for a term of 2 years was presumed to be of reasonable
,duration, and that the burden was on the petitioning union to prove
the contrary by showing that 2-year agreements were not customary
in the industry. Failure to sustain the burden of proof resulted in
the dismissal of the petitions
We thus progressed from the rule that no contract which had been
in effect for more than 1 year could operate as a bar to a determination
of representatives to the principle that a 2-year agreement is presumed
to be of reasonable duration and therefore operates as a bar to an
election unless the presumption is overcome. In the present case the
Petitioner rebutted the presumption by proving that 1-year agreements
are customary in the industry in which the Employer is engaged.'
Consequently, the question before us now is whether we should com-
plete the cycle by holding that a 2-year contract operates as a bar to
an election until the approach of its terminal date, even in the fact of
a contrary custom in the industry.
Whenever a contract, is urged as a bar, the Board is faced with the
problem of balancing two separate interests of employees and society
which the Act was designed to protect : the interest in such stability
as is essential to encourage effective collective bargaining, and the
sometimes conflicting interest in the freedom of employees to select
and change their representatives. In furtherance of the purposes of
the Act, Ave have repeatedly held that employees are entitled to change
their representatives, if they so desire, at reasonable intervals; or
conversely, that a collective bargaining contract may preclude a de-
termination of representatives for a reasonable period.
In the light of our experience in administering the Act, we believe
that a contract for a terns of 2 years cannot be said to be of unreason-
able duration. We have already held that 2-year contracts are pre-
sumptively of reasonable duration. In applying this rule, Ave have not
discovered any compelling conditions which indicate that such agree-
ments unduly limit the right of employees to change their representa-
tives. Moreover, in entertaining rival petitions several months before
the expiration of the numerous 1-year contracts which are made, we
have found that in many instances the contracting parties, having
composed their differences and executed collective bargaining con-
tracts after the expenditure of much time, effort and money, can feel
"JiLaiter of Uxbrudpe Worstcd Coinpain/, Inc, 60 N L It B 1395, see Matter of Sather-
land Paper Company, 64 N L It B 719
Thu, finding is based upon a careful consideration of the m:uiv contracts introduced
into evidence by both the Petitioner a nd the Intervenor Although the Intervenor alleged
that it had recently adopted a new policy of negotiating 2-year contracts with employers
in the steel industry , we have held that a recent innovation is not custom See Matter of
American Pharmaceutical Company . 67 N L It B 1152
930 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
truly secure in their respective positions only for the brief period of
approximately 8 or 9 months. -
For large masses of employees collective bargaining has but recently
emerged from a stage of trial and error, during which its techniques,
and full potentialities were being slowly developed under the encour-
agement and protection of the Act. To have insisted in the past upon
prolonged adherence to a bargaining agent, once chosen, would have
been wholly incompatible with this experimental and transitional pe-
riod. It was especially necessary, therefore, to lay emphasis upon
the right of workers to select and change their representatives. Now,
however, the emphasis can better be placed elsewhere. We think that
the time has come when stability of industrial relations can be better
served, without unreasonably restricting employees in their right to
change representatives, by refusing to interfere with bargaining rela-
tions secured by collective agreements of 2 years' duration. Such con-
tracts, even in the presence of a contrary custom in the industry,
should ordinarily preclude a determination of representatives until
shortly before their terminal dates.8
As the agreement between the Employer and the Intervenor will
not terminate until August 30, 1947, we shall dismiss the petition,
without prejudice to the right to file a new petition a reasonable time
before this terminal date.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and the entire record
in the case, it is hereby ordered that the petition for investigation
and certification of representatives of employees of Reed Roller Bit
Company, Houston, Texas, filed by International Association of
Machinists, District No. 37, Lodge No. 1303, be, and it hereby is,
dismissed.
8 Of course, evidence of custom in the industry is not irrelevant in cases in which con-
tracts or more than 2 years' duration are raised as bars In such cases, evidence of custom
will still be regarded by us as germane to the issue of the reasonableness of the contract
term.