Great Lakes Carbon Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 4, 1950

92 N.L.R.B. 507 (N.L.R.B. 1950)

In the Matter of GREAT LAKES CARBON COMPANY ( BUILDING PRODUCTS
DIVISION),' EMPLOYER and INTERNATIONAL CHEMICAL WORKERS,
LOCAL No. 1, A. F. of L ., PETITIONER
Case No. 21-RC-1504.-Decided December 4, 1950
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before Eugene M.
Purver, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hear-
ing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.2
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-member panel [Chairman Herzog and'Members
Murdock and Styles].
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 organizations involved claim to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. On August 15, 1949, the Employer and the Oil Workers executed
a contract, effective September 3, 1949, containing as Article XV,
Section 2, thereof, the following termination provision :
This contract shall remain in full force and effect until Sep-
tember 2, 1950. It will also remain in force and effect beyond
such expiration date on a year to year basis. Either party may
sixty (60) days prior to said anniversary date serve a written
notice requesting a meeting between the parties for the purpose
of amending, modifying or terminating the contract.
If the notice is for termination, then the contract shall be of
no further force or effect at the expiration of sixty (60) days
following the date of said notice.
If the notice is for the purpose of amending or modifying the
contract, then the terms and conditions of the contract shall
remain in full force and effect until an agreement is reached or
' The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing.
2 Oil Workers International Union , CIO, and its Local Union No. 128; herein called
the Oil Workers, were permitted to intervene on the basis of contractual interest.
92 NLRB No. 79.
507
508 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
failing agreement, either party serves sixty (60) day termina-
tion notice as stated above.
On June 27, 1950, the Oil Workers sent the Employer a letter, stating
a desire to modify the contract in accordance with its provisions and
attaching proposed changes to be included in a new contract or to
become modifications of the existing agreement. The record does not
show whether any negotiations took place between the Employer and
the Oil Workers pursuant to this notice.
On August 15', 1950, the Petitioner advised the Employer of its
representation claim, and on August 16, 1950, filed the petition herein.
The Employer declined to recognize the Petitioner*as bargaining rep-
resentative of the employees involved herein until the Board deter-
mined which labor organization represents a majority of the
employees.
The Oil Workers urges its contract as a bar to a present determina-
tion of representatives, contending that its letter of June 27, 1950, was
a notice of desire to modify but not to terminate the contract l
Whether the notice specified a desire to terminate or to modify the
contract, in either case we construe such notice, filed before the ef-
fective date of the automatic renewal clause of the contract, as in-
tended to prevent the agreement from becoming automatically
effective for another year.4 The contract specifically provided that
after notice of a desire to modify, the terms of the contract would
continue in effect until an agreement was reached, or failing agree-
ment until either party gave notice of termination. It is clear, there-
fore, in view of the Oil Workers' notice to modify, that the contract
after its original term was at best transformed into a contract termi-
nable at will, which cannot preclude this proceedings Accordingly,
we find that the contract is no bar to a present determination of
r. epresentatives.e
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) and (7) of the Act.
4. In accordance with the stipulation of the parties, we find that
the following employees of the Employer constitute a unit appropri-
ate for purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Sec-
tion 9 (b) of the Act:
3 At the hearing the Employer did not express its view as to whether the contract is a bar.
4 See Worthy Paper Company Association, 80 NLRB 19; E. I. duPont do Nemours &
Company, 73 NLRB 439.
S See Springfield Mill Company, 88 NLRB 24.
"For the reasons stated herein, the Oil Workers' motion to dismiss the petition of the
Petitioner is hereby denied.
GREAT LAKES CARBON COMPANY 509
All production and maintenance employees of the Employer's Build-
ing Products Division at its Torrance, California, plant, including
watchmen and shipping employees but excluding office and clerical
,employees, guards, technical and professional employees, and super-
visors as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
-volume.]