Variety Stamping Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 1, 1956

115 N.L.R.B. 1255 (N.L.R.B. 1956)

VARIETY STAMPING CORPORATION 1255
Variety Stamping Corporation and International Union of Elec-
trical Radio & Machine Workers , AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case
No. 8-RC-2639. May 1, 1956 '
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 Ralph W. Tyner,
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:
4. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain
employees of the Employer.'
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9
(c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
Intervenor contends that its contract with the Employer bars the
instant petition. The contract in question provided for its auto-
matic renewal for a 1-year term "unless notice of termination in writ-
ing by registered mail is given by either party" at least 60 days be-
fore its expiration date, February 29, 1956. On December 22, 1955,
shortly before the Mill B date, the Intervenor sent the following
communication to the Employer by registered mail:
Under the provisions of the Taft-Hartley Act (Public Law
101, 80th Congress), but without in any way conceding that the
Act requires this notice or that the Act is valid, United Elec-
trical, Radio & Machine Workers of America, Local 735, hereby
notifies you of its desire to open our existing collective bargain-
ing agreement for the purpose of negotiating amendments.
We hereby offer to meet and confer with you at the earliest mu-
tually convenient time for the purpose of negotiations.
At a meeting on January 17, 1956, Intervenor submitted to the Em-
ployer a• substantial number of "proposed changes . . . for contract
negotiations." The instant petition was filed on January 25, 1956.
Intervenor contends that its letter to the Employer, which refers to
the amendment, and not the termination, of the existing agreement,
did not constitute the notice of termination required by the contract
to prevent its automatic renewal. We find no merit in this contention.
Where a contract provides for both notice to terminate and notice to
1 United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America, Local 735, Ind., was per-
mitted to intervene on the basis of a current contractual inteiest in the employees involved
in this proceeding.
115 NLRB No. 194.
1256 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
modify, the question frequently arises whether a notice given shortly
before the Mill B date serves to prevent the automatic renewal of the
contract, thereby rendering a subsequently filed petition timely.2
In the instant case, however, the contract provides only for notice
of termination. Under these circumstances the Intervenor's notice to
the Employer, given shortly before tbe-Mill B date, of its desire to
change the contract must be construed as an exercise of its right to
prevent the automatic renewal of the contract.' Accordingly, we find
the contract not to be a bar to this proceeding.
4. We find, as stipulated by the parties at the hearing, that the
following employees of the Employer at its metal stampings manu-
facturing plant in Cleveland, Ohio, constitute a unit appropriate for
the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section
9 (b) of the Act: All production and maintenance employees and
inspectors, excluding office clerical employees, professional employees,
guards, and all supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
2 See, for example, Michigan Gear & Engineering Company, 114 NLRB 208: Griffith
Rubber Mills, 114 NLRB 712; American Lawn Mower Co., 108 NLRB 1589
a The 8tmulard Register Co , 100 NLRB 981.
Valdese Manufacturing Company, Inc. and Textile Workers
Union of America, AFL-CIO, Petitioner . Case No. 11-RC-815.
May 1,1956
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 Louis Perloff, hearing of-
ficer. 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 the employees
.of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c)
(1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Employer is engaged in the manufacture of textiles at
Valdese, North Carolina. The Petitioner seeks a unit of production
.and maintenance employees. The Employer and the Petitioner agreed
to exclude several named individuals as supervisors,' and to include a
'Henry Childress, John Deal, Revels Aiken, T C Taylor, Ellis Annas, Felix Plercy,
-Dart Glasebrook, Belo Hull, Briscoe Cannon, Ed Pascal, and George Rector
115 NLRB No. 196.