Dover Industrial Chrome, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 7, 1955

114 N.L.R.B. 1309 (N.L.R.B. 1955)

DOVER INDUSTRIAL CHROME, INC. 1309
had commenced its normal operations. Although the record reveals
that the Employer has expanded its operations and now produces cer-
tain items that it did not produce at the time the contract was executed,
it appears that when the contract was executed a substantial percentage
of the current employee complement was employed and that all cur-
rent employee classifications were represented. Accordingly, we find
that the changed circumstances in the Employer's operations do not
remove the contract as a bar.
Upon the basis of the foregoing, we find that the existing contract
between the Intervenor and the Employer is a bar to a present deter-
mination of representatives and that therefore no question affecting
commerce exists concerning the representation of employees of the
Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6)
and (7) of the Act. Accordingly, we shall dismiss the petition.
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
As the existing contract has been in effect for only 18 months, we find it unnecessary
at this time to pass upon the Petitioner's contention that the contract is not a bar to a
representation proceeding after the expiration of 2 years from date of its execution.
Dover Industrial Chrome, Inc. and Chicago Amalgamated Local
758, International Union of Mine, Mill & Smelter Workers,
Petitioner . Case No. 13-RC-W8. December 7,1955
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 Rush F. Hall, 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 :
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:
The Employer is an Illinois corporation engaged in industrial
chrome plating. The Petitioner seeks to represent the production
and maintenance employees at the Employer's Chicago, Illinois, plant.
The Employer and the Intervenor contend that they have a current
contract which is a bar to an election. The Petitioner asserts that
'Metal Polishers, Buffers, Platers & Helpers International Union, Local No. 6, AFL,
herein called the Intervenor , intervened at the hearing on the basis of a contract interest.
114 NLRB No. 201.
1310 DECISIONS OF, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
there is no valid agreement between the Intervenor and the Employer
which may bar an immediate election.
On October 26, 1950, the Intervenor and Dover Industries, Inc.,
which was then conducting these operations, entered into a collective-
bargaining contract, covering the instant employees, among others,
effective from September 18, 1950, until December 31, 1952, and there-
after from year to year absent notice of modification or termination
given 60 days prior to the expiration date.
On May 2, 1955, the Employer purchased the instant operations of
Dover Industries, Inc.' On August 23, 1955, the petition was filed.
The Intervenor contends that its 1950 contract with Dover Indus-
tries, Inc., was assumed by the Employer by a letter of July 29, 1955,
and that the contract so adopted is of indefinite duration, effective for
2 years.3
Even if we assume that the Employer's letter of July 29, 1955, con-
stituted an adoption of the 1950 contract, that letter, having been
signed by the Employer alone, could not operate as a bar to the peti-
tion.' Moreover, even were we to treat the 1950 contract as properly
adopted, no reason appears for finding that the parties did not intend
to adopt the termination provisions of the 1950 contract. Under these
provisions the automatic renewal date of the adopted contract would
be November 1, 1955. As' the petition was filed before that date it
would not be barred in any event. Accordingly, we reject the con-
tract-bar contention.'
4. We find that the following employees of the Employer 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 at the Employer's Chi-
cago, Illinois, plant, excluding office employees, clerical employees,
guards, professional employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act.'
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
MEMBERS MuRDOCK and BEAN took no part in the consideration of
the above Decision and Direction of Election.
2 In February 1955, Dover Industries , Inc , had sold another portion of its business to
Dover Plating Company. At the time of the hearing Dover Industries , Inc., was still
in existence.
3In its 'July 29, 1955 , letter, in response to a demand by the Intervenor for recognition,
the Employer stated, in part :
Our employees have indicated that they wish to be represented by Local 6, under
the terms of the contract formerly in existence between Dover Industries , Inc., and
its employees. Since Dover Industrial Chrome, Inc., has taken over , it has honored
all phases of that contract with respect to previous seniority , vacations , holidays,
etc. . . . Dover Industrial Chrome, Inc., will start deducting dues from members pay
checks as soon as you notify us to do so.
s Jolly Gzant Lumber Co ., 114 NLRB 413.
6 As we find that the contract is not a bar, it is not necessary to pass on Petitioner's
contention that the ' contract contains an illegal union-security provision.
e The unit finding conforms to the agreement of the parties.