Eastern Cooperatives, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 29, 1948

79 N.L.R.B. 1112 (N.L.R.B. 1948)

In the Matter of EASTERN COOPERATIVES, INC., EMPLOYER and RETAIL,
WHOLESALE AND DEPARTMENT STORE UNION, CIO, PETITIONER
Case No. ,°L-RC-255.Decided September 29,1948
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before a hearing of-
ficer of the National Labor Relations Board. The hearings 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 National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-man 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 em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. The question concerning representation :
The Intervenor asserts an alleged current contract as a bar to a
present determination of representatives. The Intervenor has been
in contractual relationship with the Employer relative to the em-
ployees involved herein since 1938. The contract upon which the
Intervenor relies was to terminate on January 1, 1948, but con-
tained an automatic renewal clause providing that the contract would
renew itself from year to year in the absence of a written notice of
' At the hearing , the hearing officer permitted intervention by United Office and Pro-
fessional Employees of America , CIO, Local 16, herein called the Intervenor . That ruling
was error . As it is hereinafter determined that the Intervenor had no present contractual
interest at the time of the hearing and had not complied with the filing requirements of the
Act, we find that its intervention was improper . Matter of Dictaphone Corporation, 78
N. L R B. 866; Matter of North American Philips Company, Inc., 78 N. L. R. B. 666.
*Houston , Reynolds , and Gray.
79 N. L. R. B., No. 145.
1112
EASTERN COOPERATIVES, INC. 1113
termination given by either party to the other at least 30 days prior
to any anniversary date.
On November 25, 1947, the Shop Committee chairman of the Inter-
venor, acting pursuant to instructions from the employees covered by
the contract, gave the Employer written notice that the employees
desired to terminate the contract. On November 28, 1947, the
Employer, by letter to the Shop Committee chairman, acknowledged
that notice to terminate had been given in accordance with the terms
of the contract.
The Intervenor contends that the Shop Committee, acting through
its chairman, had no authority to terminate the contract or to act as
its agent for the purposes of terminating the contract. The Inter-
venor asserts that inasmuch as no notice to terminate the contract was
given by the Employer, or by itself, 30 days prior to the expiration
date, the contract automatically renewed itself, and is, therefore, a bar
to the petition filed in this proceeding on March 22, 1948. We do not
agree.
The record reveals that the Shop Committee, without the presence or
aid of any other person associated with the Intervenor, handled most
of the negotiations for the contract. At the final negotiating confer-
ence, the Shop Committee and representatives of the Employer only
were present. The record further discloses that in the past, contracts
were terminated by written notices to the Employer given by the Shop
Committee 30 days prior to the contract expiration dates. And para-
graph 14 of the contract provides as follows :
(14) The shop shall elect from time to time a shop committee
to represent the union and the employees in the office cov-
ered by this agreement.
Acquiescence by the Intervenor in the termination of preceding
contracts, by notice to the Employer from the Shop Committee, in our
opinion vested the latter with authority, actual or implied, to terminate
the 1947 contract in a like manner, absent a prior revocation of such
authority by the Intervenor. Further, paragraph 14 of the contract,
above set forth, delegated authority to the Shop Committee to "repre-
sent the union." Under all the circumstances, we find that proper and
timely notice to terminate was given and that the 1947 contract did not
renew itself. There is, therefore, no bar to a current determination of
representatives.
We find that a question affecting commerce exists concerning the
representation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of
Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) (7) of the Act.
1-114 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
4. The following employees of the Employer constitute a unit
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the mean-
ing of Section 9 (b) of the Act: all regular full-time packers and office
and clerical employees, including editorial writers and administrative
assistants, employed at the-Employer's New York City plant, exclud-
ingfield men, guards, watchmen, professional and confidential employ-
ees, and supervisors within the meaning of the Act.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the
purposes of collective bargaining with the Employer, an election by
secret ballot shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later than
30 days from the date of this Direction, under the direction and super-
vision of the Regional Director for the Region in which the case was
heard, and subject to Sections 203.61 and 203.62 of National Labor
Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 5, as amended, among
the employees in the unit found appropriate in paragraph 4, above,
who were employed during the pay-roll period immediately preceding
the date of this Direction of Election, including employees who did not
work during the said pay-roll period because they were ill or on vaca-
tion or temporarily laid off, but excluding those employees who have
since quit or been discharged for cause and have not been rehired or
reinstated prior to the date of the election, and also excluding employ-
ees on strike who are not entitled to reinstatement, to determine
whether or not they desire to be represented, for purposes of col-
lective bargaining, by Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union,
CIO.