Cornell Dubilier Electric Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 29, 1948

78 N.L.R.B. 664 (N.L.R.B. 1948)

In the Matter of CORNELL DIIBILIER ELECTRIC CORPORATION and INTER-
NATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF FIREMEN AND OILERS, HELPERS, ROUND-
HOUSE AND RAILWAY SHOP LABORERS, LOCAL 294, AFL
Case No. 1-RC-297.Decided July 29, 1948
DECISION
AND
ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before a hearing offi-
cer of the National Labor Relations Board. The hearing officer's rul-
ings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby
affirmed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-lean panel consisting of the undersigned Board
Members.*
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
National Labor Relations Act.
2. The labor organization named below claims to represent the
employees of the Employer.
3. The alleged question concerning representation :
The Employer contends that it and the Petitioner are parties to a
collective bargaining contract currently in effect covering the employ-
ees for whom the Petitioner is here seeking an election 1 and that such a
contract constitutes a bar to this proceeding. The Petitioner argues
that it terminated its contractual relations with the Employer by
means of an appropriate notice pursuant to the provisions of their
contract.' It appears that the sole issue presented to the Board in this
'Chairman Herzog and Members Reynolds and Murdock.
'Firemen, oilers, and -helpers.
2 The contract, originally effective on January 10, 1945, provides for year-to-year con-
tinuance -unless notice has been given to either party thirty (30) days prior to the
expiration of such agreement, and at the time of serving such notice specifications of the
proposed changes shall be submitted" On September 4, 1946, the Petitioner submitted
to the Employer proposed changes for a new contract The Employer takes the position
that the Petitioner's notice was inadequate on the ground that it was served more than
the required "30 days prior" to the expiration date of the contract. Consequently, the
78 N. L. R. B., No. 81.
664
CORNELL DUBILIER ELECTRIC CORPORATION 665
proceeding is whether or not a collective bargaining contract is in
existence between the parties.
Under the circumstances disclosed in the record, we deem it un-
necessary to determine this issue. It is clear that the Employer does
not dispute the appropriateness of the unit requested by the Peti-
tioner or refuse to recognize the Petitioner as the majority representa-
tive of the employees in such unit. It appears from the record that
the Petitioner is concerned rather with the alleged failure of the Em-
ployer to meet with it for the purpose of negotiating a new contract.,,
This is not the proper proceeding to resolve the issues between the
parties; an election would serve no useful purpose. We find that a
question concerning representation does not exist.4 The Board is,
therefore, without jurisdiction to proceed with its investigation under
Section 9 (c) (1) of the Act, as amended. Accordingly, we shall
dismiss the petition.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the above fuidings of fact and upon the entire
record in the case, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders
that the Petition for Certification of Representatives of employees of
Cornell Dubilier Electric Corporation, New Bedford, Massachusetts,
filed by the International Brotherhood of Firemen and Oilers, Helpers,
Roundhouse and Railway Shop Laborers, Local 294, AFL, be, and it
hereby is, dismissed.
Employer concludes that the contract renewed itself on January 10, 1947 . On the other
hand , the Petitioner argues that its notice of September 4, 1946 , was sufficient to terminate
the contract and that, in any event , on February 11, 1947, it orally advised the Employer
of its desire to negotiate a new contract and thereafter , until the filing of this petition on
March 10 , 1948, it sought to confer with the Employer on the terms of a new contract but
on all, such occasions was unable to secure an appointment.
8 See footnote 2.
4 At the hearing the Employer entered into a formal stipulation that it refuses to
recognize'iSie-Petitioner _until - the Petitioner is certified by the Board in an appropriate
unit. We find this stipulation to be entirely inconsistent with the -Employer ' s actual
position taken at the hearing and shall therefore disregard it.