American Smelting and Refining Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 31, 1957

118 N.L.R.B. 915 (N.L.R.B. 1957)

AMERICAN SMELTING AND REFINING COMPANY 915
American Smelting and Refining Company , Silver Bell Operation
and Local Union No. 428 , International Union of Operating
Engineers , AFL-CIO and Chauffeurs , Teamsters , Warehouse-
men and Helpers, Local Union No. 310, AFL-CIO, Petitioners.
Cases Nos. 21-RC-4681 and 21-RC-4768. July 31,1957
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon petitions duly filed under section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before James W. Cherry, Jr., hear-
ing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
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 Leedom and Members Murdock and
Jenkins].
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
employees of the Employer.
3. No 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, for the following
reasons:
The Employer and the Intervenor (District 50, United Mine Work-
ers of America, Local Union No. 13886) contend that their current con-
tract constitutes a bar to the petitions filed by Local Union No. 428,
International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO, herein called
the Operating Engineers, and by Chauffeurs, Teamsters, Warehouse-
men and Helpers, Local Union No. 310, AFL-CIO, herein called
the Teamsters.
The Employer is engaged in mining and milling of copper ore at
Silver Bell, Arizona, where it operates 2 open pit mines, one of which
is located within a mile and the other about 4 miles from the milling
or concentrator operation. The Operating Engineers and the Team-
sters seek to represent separate, different units of employees who work
at the mine operations.
On December 15, 1954, the Employer entered into a 2-year contract
with the Intervenor covering all production and maintenance em-
ployees at the mill. During most of this period, the Employer's
mining operation was being performed by an independent contractor,
whose employees, it is conceded, were not those of the Employer.
On December 10, 1956, the Employer commenced to operate the mine
with its own employees, transferring some of its mill employees to
118 NLRB No. 112.
916 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the mine. Between December 13, 1956, and January 2, 1957, the
Employer and the Intervenor were in negotiations for a new contract.
One of the issues between these parties was whether or not the mine
employees should be included in the same contract with mill employees,
as requested by the Intervenor and resisted by the Employer. By
January 2, 1957, a complete contract was agreed upon by the Em-
ployer and the Intervenor, including the request that the contract
cover all production and maintenance employees at the mine and the
mill. The contract, in its final typewritten form, was ready for sig-
nature on January 4, 1957. On that date, the membership of the
Intervenor met and ratified the contract, which became effective retro-
actively as of December 16, 1956. On January 5, 1957, the Intervenor
advised the Employer of the ratification and that the contract would
be signed on January 22, 1957, because the Intervenor's 'field repre-
sentative, who attended the negotiations and approved the terms of
the contract on January 2, was away on business and would not return
until January 22. The contract was signed on January 22, 1957.
The Operating Engineer's petition was filed on January 16, 1957,
and the Teamsters' petition on March 13, 1957. The Operating En-
gineers contends that its petition was timely filed with respect to the
formal execution of the contract. Both the Operating Engineers and
the Teamsters also contend that the contract is no bar because the
Employer did not have a representative group of mine employees at
the time the contract was signed.
We find no merit in the Operating Engineers' contention that the
contract between the Employer and the Intervenor is no bar to an
election herein because it had not been signed until after the filing of
the petition. In applying its contract-bar rules, the Board is pri-
marily concerned with whether the contract imparts to the relation-
ship of the parties a degree of stability which outweighs the right
of the employees to a redetermination of bargaining representatives
at that particular time.' Although the Board generally requires that
contracts, in order to constitute a bar, must be properly executed, the
Board has held that in circumstances such as here, where certain sub-
stantive provisions have been placed in effect and where all that re-
mained was the ministerial act of placing signatures upon the agreed
document, the contract constitutes a bar from the date when the terms
,of the agreement were properly concluded. Thus, the terms of the
,contract were completely agreed upon by the parties on January 2,
1957, the employees ratified the agreement a few days later, and the
wage and other provisions took effect on December 16, 1956, all prior
to the filing of the petition by the Operating Engineers. In view of
the foregoing, we do not believe that stability in labor relations would
be served by a redetermination of bargaining representatives at this
1 Natona Mills, Inc., 112 NLRB 236, 239.
THE ELECTRONICS AND INSTRUMENTATION DIVISION 917
time 2 Accordingly, we find that the current contract of the Em-
ployer and the Intervenor is a bar to the Operating Engineers' petition
and we shall therefore dismiss the petition. For the reason stated
below, we shall also dismiss the Teamsters' petition 3
[The Board dismissed the petitions.]
2 Mervin Wave Clip Company, 114 NLRB 157; Natona Mills, Inc., supra. Cf. Gibson
Refrigerator Company, Division of Hupp Corporation, 117 NLRB 561, wherein the Board
held that a contract signed after the filing of a petition did not constitute a.bar, as the
terms of the agreement provided that it was not to take effect until 3 months after the
parties agreed to the terms of the contract.
We find no merit in the contention that the Employer did not have a representative
group of employees in the mine operation on January 2, 1957, at the time the Employer
and Intervenor agreed to the terms of the contract, as the record shows that as of December
13, 1956, there were 26 employees in 16 job classifications and that by April 4, 1957, the
time of hearing when a full complement was reached, there were 49 employees in 23 job
classifications. See Cyclone Sales, Inc., 115 NLRB 431, footnote 1; Decker Clothes, Inc.,
83 NLRB 484.
The Electronics and Instrumentation Division of Baldwin-Lima-
Hamilton Corporation and International Association of Ma-
chinists, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 1-RC-4857. July 31,
1957
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 Thomas E. McDonald,
hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are
free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
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 Leedom and Members Rodgers and Jenkins].
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
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 Petitioner seeks to represent a unit of machine shop em-
ployees at the Employer's Waltham, Massachusetts, plant . It is also
willing to represent other employees in the plant whose skills duplicate
those of machine shop employees. The Intervenor, International
Union of United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement
Workers of America, AFL-CIO, seeks to represent the machine shop
employees as an appropriate departmental unit. The Employer
118 NLRB No. 115.