Eagle Signal Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 17, 1955

111 N.L.R.B. 1006 (N.L.R.B. 1955)

1006 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Haidet denied that he made the statement attributed to him by Loyd. Neither
Haidet nor Loyd, who is the Charging Party herein , impressed me as individuals who
in giving their testimony were striving to achieve objectivity and accuracy. Their
testimony was partisan and colored to favor their respective positions . Haidet was
not asked to recount his version of the June 10 conversation . He merely denied
having made the statement attributed to him by Loyd that he had three men at the
union meeting at Loyd's house the previous Saturday. Certainly, in view of Loyd's
testimony that no such meeting had taken place, Haidet could not have had personal
informants at such meeting at Loyd 's house. It seems improbable that Haidet would
tell such obviously fabricated story to the man most likely to know of its falsity.
Whether Haidet had made some statement which Loyd may have construed to mean
that Haidet had had three informants at a meeting that had not been held cannot
be determined in view of the absence of any effort by either counsel to obtain from
Haidet his version of the June 10 conversation with Loyd . In the circumstance, I
do not find that the General Counsel has proved by a preponderance of the evidence
that Haidet made the incriminating remark attributed to him by Loyd.
Upon the basis of the foregoing , I do not find that the Respondent has violated
Section 8 ( a) (1) of he Act as alleged in the complaint herein.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
The Respondent has not engaged in any unfair labor practices within the meaning
of the Act during the times embraced by the charge and complaint herein.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
EAGLE SIGNAL CORPORATION and INTERNATIONAL UNION OF ELECTRI-
CAL, RADIO AND MACHINE WORKERS, CIO, PETITIONER
EAGLE SIGNAL CORPORATION and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF TOOL
CRAFTSMEN, LOCAL No. 1, N. I. U. C., PETITIONER. Cases NOS. 18-
RC-,' 362 and 18-RC-2411. March 17,1955
Decision and Order
Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before
Clarence A. Meter, 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 these cases, 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 em-
ployees of the Employer.'
3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the represen-
tation 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
reason :
The Employer and the UE contend that a collective-bargaining
agreement executed on October 24, 1952, retroactive to July 1, 1952,
1 Local 822, United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America, UE !Ind., herein
called UE, was allowed to intervene on the basis of its contractual interest in the em-
ployees involved.
111 NLRB No. 168.
EAGLE SIGNAL CORPORATION 1007
which was to run to July 1, 1954, with automatic renewal from year to
year after the original termination date absent 60 days' notice, is a bar
to this proceeding. The contract contains a clause permitting
"... either party . . . to reopen this agreement only as to overall
wage rates on July 1, 1954, upon giving to the other party a sixty (60)
day written notice of such intention." It is further provided that if
such notice is given and no agreement is reached by July 1, 1954, either
party may render the contract's no lockout, no strike provision inop-
erative by giving a 5-day notice to that effect.
On April 26, 1954, shortly before the Mill B date and at a time suit-
able for giving a 60-day notice of termination, the UE notified the
Company by letter that it was exercising its right to reopen the agree-
ment as to overall wage rates and that "(T)his shall be construed by
the parties to this agreement to include fringe economic benefits." In
its acknowledging letter dated April 29, 1954, the Employer said,
"(T)his notice . . . relates only to overall general wage rates." The
next day, the UE replied by letter which said in part, "(R)eceived
your letter of April 29,1954, in which the Union's notice of re-opening
the agreement as to overall wage rates is acknowledged"; no mention
was made of the former request of the Union to discuss fringe eco-
nomic benefits.
The IUE filed the petition in Case No. 18-RC-2362, on September
13, 1954. On December 20, 1954, the petition in Case No. 18-RC-2411
was filed by the Craftsmen. The Petitioners contend, inter alia, that
the contract is not a bar on the ground that the notice given by the
UE was sufficiently broad to forestall automatic renewal of the
contract.
The record discloses that, although the parties to the contract have
met at bargaining meetings since the notice was given by the UE on
April 26, 1954, no agreement has been reached as to overall wage rates.
However, there have been two contract changes negotiated since the
UE's notice with the results : (1) On June 28, 1954, an amendment
was executed which increased the incentive base rate for one classifi-
cation of employees, and (2) on November 11, 1954, a provision per-
taining to the seniority of certain salaried employees was added to the
contract. The latter amendment was necessitated by the transfer of
employees caused by a decrease in the Employer's business. At the
various meetings held between the Company and the UE the elimi-
nation of the escalator clause, change in the wage reopening date, and
extension of the contract for 1 year were discussed. The no-lockout,
no-strike provision of the contract is still in effect.
We find no merit in the Petitioners' contention that the notice given
by the UE effectively forestalled automatic renewal of the contract.
The principle of American Lawn Mower Co.,2 relied upon by the IUE,
2 108 NLRB 1589
10()8 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
is not applicable to the present factual situation. In that case, the
Board held that if the contract contains coterminous modification
and termination clauses, a broad notice given under the modification
clause necessarily implies an intent to suspend the contract, and is
tantamount to a notice to terminate. The notice given in that case,
covering 14 subjects ranging from a new security provision to changes
in working conditions, is to be contrasted with the UE's narrow re-
quest to discuss wages and "fringe economic benefits." Accordingly,
as the notice alone is not sufficiently broad to require an implication
of intent to reopen generally,' the parties' intention with respect to
automatic renewal is to be ascertained by the subsequent conduct of
the parties in relation thereto 4
The Employer's letter limiting the negotiations to wages and the
UE's reply which made no further mention of its initial request for
"fringe" benefit discussions, are evident of the Employer's and the
UE's interpretation of the notice as intended to permit only the nego-
tiation of wages and to allow automatic renewal of the contract.'
Upon the record as a whole, we find that neither the UE's notice
by itself, nor the subsequent conduct of the parties in relation thereto,
indicated a desire to reopen the entire contract and thus prevent the
automatic renewal thereof. Accordingly, we find that the contract
of July 1, 1952, as automatically renewed, is a bar to this proceeding.
We shall therefore dismiss the petitions.
[The Board dismissed the petitions.]
MEMBER MURDOCK, concurring :
I agree with my colleagues' conclusion that the contract of July 1,
1953, was automatically renewed and is therefore a bar to this pro-
ceeding. Based as it is on a finding that the UE's notice was intended
to reopen the contract for modifications only, and to allow the con-
tract automatically to renew itself, the conclusion that the contract
is a bar to this proceeding reflects the effect which the contracting par-
ties intended the notice to have. The decision thus accords with the
well-established Board policy of striving to respect and effectuate the
intentions of the parties set forth in their contract, except where to
do so would conflict with basic Board principles.
In my opinion it is immaterial whether the notice involved herein
be construed as a narrow notice to reopen or a broad notice to reopen.
The important consideration is whether the notice was intended merely
to reopen the contract or to terminate the contract. Whether the no-
3 The Board has held that a "package proposal " covering a number of subjects in addi-
tion to wages , but not extending to the entire contract , is substantially within the scope
of the contract 's wage negotiation provision. See West End Chemical Company, 89
NLRB 611.
a Union Bag & Paper Corporation, 110 NLRB 1361
5 See Racquette River Paper Company, 85 NLRB 835.
JEFFERSON CO., INC. 1009
tice be narrow or broad; it may in either event be necessary to refer
to the subsequent conduct of the parties, in order to ascertain the effect
they intended it to have. Accordingly, I disassociate myself from
that part of the decision which clearly implies that a broad notice
to reopen requires an implication of intent to terminate the existing
contract and to negotiate a new contract.
CHAIRMAN FARMER took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Order.
JEFFERSON Co., INC. and RETAIL CLERKS UNION LOCAL No. 1625, RETAIL
CLERKS INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION , AFL, PETITIONER. Case No.
10-RC-2782. March,17,1955
Supplemental Decision and Direction
Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election dated November
19, 1954, an election by secret ballot was conducted on December 16,
1954, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director
for the Tenth Region, among the employees of the Employer in the
unit found appropriate. Upon conclusion of the balloting the parties
were furnished with a tally of ballots which showed that there were
approximately 38 eligible voters and that 38 ballots were cast, of
which 18 were for the Petitioner, 1 was for the Intervenor,' 17 were
against the participating labor organizations, and 2 were challenged.
The challenged ballots are insufficient in number to affect the results
of the election.
The Regional Director conducted an investigation of the issues
raised by the challenges, and on January 6, 1955, issued and served
upon the parties his report on challenged ballots, recommending that
the challenge to the ballot of Don Ferone be overruled and that
the challenge to the ballot of John Gallucci be sustained. No excep-
tions were filed by any of the parties. Although, on January 17,1955,
the Employer filed a document entitled "Exceptions to Portion of
Report on Challenged Ballot of John Gallucci," it took no exception
to the Regional Director's recommendation, but merely objected to the
inclusion in the report of an ex parte statement by John Gallucci which
the Employer contends is without merit.
The Board, having duly considered the entire record with respect
to the challenged ballots, finds merit to the Regional Director's recom-
mendations which we hereby adopt. Accordingly, we shall overrule
the challenge to the ballot of Don Ferone and direct that the ballot
be opened and counted, and we shall sustain the challenge to the
ballot of John Gallucci.
1 Congress of Industrial Organizations.
111 NLRB No. 161.