State Fuel Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 13, 1953

103 N.L.R.B. 594 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

594 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair practices affecting commerce
within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
5. The Respondent did not discharge or unlawfully refuse to reinstate Billy Joe
Green, Mary Ann Lucas, Velma Hardy, Annie Bell Colburn, and Luther Logan,
and did not discriminatorily refuse to employ Lavenia Etheridge.
[Recommendations omitted from publication in this volume.]
STATE FUEL COMPANY and LOCAL 68, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF
TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN & HELPERS OF AMERICA,.
AFL, PETITIONER.' Case No. 1-RG-3055. March 13, 1953
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 Leo J. Halloran, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from
prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.2
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 fords :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. The Employer asserts as a bar to the petition a contract with the
State Fuel Yardmen's Union entered into November 1, 1950. The
only provisions as to the duration are found in article 9, the final
article of the contract, which originally read as follows :
Section 1. This agreement shall remain in full force and effect
and shall not be altered during the period from
inclusive
Section 2. This agreement shall continue in full force and ef-
fect thereafter from year to year on an annual basis unless one
of the parties hereto shall on or before the 1st day of February
' The Petitioner 's name appears in the caption as amended at the hearing.
2 We find, contrary to the Employer 's contention , that the hearing officer acted properly in
permitting the amendment of the petition at the hearing by the substitution of Local 68
for the original petitioner Local 995 At the time of the filing of the petition Local 995
had jurisdiction over the categories of employees In the proposed unit and Local 68 had not.
After Local 995 had made a sufficient showing of Interest but before the hearing, both locals
surrendered their chatters ; Local 995 became defunct and a new charter was granted to
Local 68 which gave it jurisdiction over the categories of employees formerly represented
by Local 995 in addition to those over which the former Local 68 had had jurisdiction. We
are administratively satisfied that a sufficient number of employees have indicated a desire
for collective bargaining and that the desires of the employees may best be resolved by
directing an election with Local 68 on the ballot.
103 NLRB No. 47.
STATE FUEL COMPANY 595
in any year give to the other party notice in writing of its in-
tention to terminate the agreement on the 31st day of March next
following.
The blank spaces provided in section 1 for insertion of the effective
dates of the contract were never filled in.
Sometime in 1951,3 after the Employer had raised the wage rate,
changes were made in ink in the figures in the article dealing with
wages to reflect this change. At the same time the concluding words
of article 9, section 2, "March next following," were scored out and
the word "October" handprinted above the deleted words 4
As no termination date is fixed for the contract's initial period, we
find that the contract is one of indefinite duration.5 It has been in
effect for more than 2 years and therefore cannot bar the instant peti-
tions Accordingly, we find that a question affecting commerce exists
concerning the representation of employees of the Employer within
the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) (7) of the Act.
4. The following employees of the Employer constitute a unit ap-
propriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the mean-
ing of Section 9 (b) of the Act : All full-time and regular part-time
yardmen, rackmen, and gaugers of the Company at its plant in East
Boston, Massachusetts, excluding temporary employees, employees
who have no regular working hours, office and clerical employees,
guards, professional employees, all other employees, and all super-
visors as defined in the Act.'
[Text of Direction of Election 8 omitted from publication in this
volume.]
8 The Employer 's manager , the sole signatory for the Employer , did not testify. The
Employer 's treasurer , its only witness , testified that he was present when the changes were
made. Initially he testified that the changes in the contract were made In September or
October 1951 but later testified that they were made in the spring of 1951 which accords
with the recollection of the Petitioner 's witness who was also present when they were
made.
4 After the deleted words appear the handwritten figures 1952 with a single line lightly
drawn across them. Both parties testified that they did not know when these figures were
added, when they were struck out, or , indeed, whether It was intended to delete them.
5 The Employer offered to prove that the Intent of the parties In making the changes
described above was to extend the contract of November 1, 1950, to October 31 , 1952, and
from year to year thereafter In the absence of notice to terminate given by either party
before the preceding February 1. (No such notice was given In 1952.) The Employer suf-
fered no prejudice by the hearing officer ' s rejection of Its proffer . If the Employer had been
able to elicit such testimony , it would nevertheless appear that the petition herein was
filed before the February 1 date in 1953 thus fixed.
6 Stone & Webster iingineering Corp , 94 NLRB 197, footnote 3.
7 The above unit description follows the stipulation of the parties.
8 The record indicates that the State Fuel Yardmen's Union, which did not Intervene In
this proceeding , may well be defunct. It Is unnecessary to resolve this question , as such
Union, even If still in existence , could not be placed on the ballot because It has never
complied with the filing requirements of Section 9 (f), (g), and (h) of the Act.