Grinnell Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 17, 1952

97 N.L.R.B. 1268 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

1268 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
GRINNELL CORPORATION and UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO,
PETITIONER . Case No. 1-RC-2318. January 17, 1952
Decision and Order
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Sidney A. Coven, hearing
officer. The hearing 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 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 Act.
2. No 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 for the following
reasons:
The Employer and the Intervenor, Independent Metal Workers
Union, urge their current contract as a bar to this proceeding. The
Petitioner contends that the contract in question is no bar because
(1) it contains an illegal union-security provision; (2) it was neither
authorized nor ratified by the membership of the Intervenor; and
(3) that there was a premature extension of the contract and that
the petition, which was filed before the date on which the old contract
could have expired, was therefore timely filed.
On October 26, 1946, the Employer and the Intervenor 1 executed an
agreement which by its terms was to remain in full force and effect
for a period of 1 year, and thereafter from year to year unless modified
or terminated on 60 days' notice. This contract was extended in 1947
and 1948 by supplemental agreements. On October 14, 1949,2 the
Employer and the Intervenor entered into a supplement to expire
August 12,1951, which contained the following provision :
Section 1. It is agreed that any employee who is a member of
the Union in good standing, and those eligible employees who
thereafter become members of the Union, shall, for the duration
of this agreement, as a condition of employment, remain a mem-
ber of the union in good standing in accordance with the present
provisions of the Constitution and .By-Laws of said union.
Under its former name, Auburn Shop Council.
: A union -authorization election was held on September 28, 1949 ( Case No. 1-UA-3077),
and the Intervenor was certified on October 6, 1949 , as authorized to enter into a union-
security agreement.
97 NLRB No. 156.
GRINNELL CORPORATION 1269
On September 26, 1950, the Employer and the Intervenor executed
another supplemental agreement which extended the contract as
modified until August 12, 1952. On July 2, 1951, the instant petition
was filed.
The parties stipulated at the hearing that the union-security pro-
vision was incorporated by reference in the 1950 supplement and is
currently in full force and effect. For the reasons stated in Charles
A. Krause Milling Co.,3 the fact that the contract contains no 30-day
escape clause for old employees who were members on the effective
date of the maintenance-of-membership clause is not material to the
validity of the contract as a bar. As to new employees, the contract
does not require that they become members of the Intervenor. We
therefore reject the Petitioner's contention that the contract is no
bar because the union-security clause is invalid.
The Petitioner's second contention is that the 1950 supplemental
agreement is invalid, and therefore no bar, because it was not, au-
thorized or ratified by the membership of the Intervenor. Under the
constitution and bylaws of the Intervenor, which were in effect at the
time the 1950 supplement was executed, the executive board of the
Intervenor was authorized to "negotiate" contracts. According to
the record, at a meeting held before the execution of the 1950 agree-
ment, the membership voted a recommendation to the executive board
that when and if the Employer agreed to a 10 cents per hour increase,
the executive board should enter into an agreement containing such
increase. The minutes of a membership meeting on August 7, 1950,
show that, after these negotiations then pending were discussed, the
membership gave the executive board a vote of confidence. A contract
including the 10 cents an hour increase was, in fact, executed by the
parties. Under these circumstances, we find no merit in the
Petitioner's contention that the contract was not properly executed.
Finally, the Petitioner contends that, even if the 1950 supplement
is otherwise valid, the petition was timely filed under the premature
extension doctrine. The Petitioner, in support of this contention,
introduced evidence showing that on September 21, 1950-5 days be-
fore the 1950 supplement was executed-it had advised the Employer
that it represented a substantial number of employees and would file
a petition when the contract then in effect expired; that on October 3,
1950, after the September 1950 supplement was executed, it protested
to the Employer and the Intervenor the premature extension of the
contract; and that it wrote the Employer on June 27, 1951, requesting
recognition, and filed its petition on July 2, 1951.
Charles A. Krause Milling Co.. 97 NLRB 536.
986209-52-vol. 97-81
1270 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Employer and the Intervenor, on the other hand, maintain that
the automatic renewal clause of the original 1946 agreement and the.
1947 and 1948 supplements were incorporated by reference in the 1949•
and 1950 supplements, so that, even assuming that the 1950 supple-
ment was a premature extension, it is nevertheless a bar because the
Petitioner filed its petition after June 13, 1951, the Mill B date. To^
determine this issue it therefore becomes necessary to determine-
whether the 1949 supplement, in fact, contained an automatic renewal.
clause.
The 1949 supplement states :
The following changes in the previous Agreement and supple-
ments that expired August 12, 1949, and the remaining articles
and clauses of the previous agreements and supplements, shall
remain in effect, except as modified below, until August 12, 1951.
Either party may upon written notice to the other at least sixty
(60) days prior to August 12, 1950, reopen negotiations for the
purpose of discussing wages.
It does not appear from reading the remainder of this supplement,
that the automatic renewal clause was modified. The record shows,
and we find, that for the sake of brevity the automatic renewal clause
was deemed included along with all other clauses that were carried
over from the contract, and that it was intended to spell out only the•
items in the contract that were modified. Under the circumstances,
we agree with the contention of the Employer and the Intervenor that
the automatic renewal clause was continued in effect. It follows,,
therefore, that the Petitioner's request for recognition on June 27,
1951, and the filing of the petition on. July 2, 1951, both after the Mill
B date which was June 13, 1951, were not timely.4 Nor is this con-
clusion affected by the Petitioner's earlier requests for recognition in
September and October 1950, as it is clear that it did not follow up
these requests with the filing of a petition within 10 days after the
requests.'
. Accordingly, on the basis of the foregoing and the entire record,
we shall dismiss the petition e
Order
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition herein be, and it hereby is,
dismissed.
4 X-Ray Manufacturing Corporation of America, 92 NLRB 1849 ( to which Chairman
Herzog dissented , as he would here if not bound by that earlier decision).
e General Electric X-Ray Corporation , 67 NLRB 997
e After the close of the hearing, District 64, International Association of Machinists,
moved to intervene in this proceeding. In view of the dismissal of the petition herein, we
Snd it unnecessary to pass on this motion.