Helmco, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 30, 1955

114 N.L.R.B. 1585 (N.L.R.B. 1955)

HELMCO , INC. 1585
Helmco, Inc. and Independent Metal Workers Union , Petitioner.
Case No. 13-RC-4533. December 30, 1955
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a, petition'duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held'before Richard B. Simon
and Raymond A. Jacobson, hearing officers. The hearing officers'
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 em-
ployees of the Employer.'
3. 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 Intervenor contends that its contract with the Employer bars
this proceeding. -
.On October 23, 1954, the Employer and Intervenor entered into a
collective-bargaining agreement containing these provisions :
ARTICLE I
EFFECTIVE DATE-TERMINATION-AMENDMENTS
Section 1. This agreement shall take effect as of Midnight
September 30th, 1954 and shall remain in effect until Midnight
September 30th, 1955. It shall continue in effect from year to
year thereafter from Midnight September 30th. to Midnight Sep-
-tember 30th. of each year, unless changed or terminated in the way
later provided herein.
Section 2. Either party desiring to change or terminate this
agreement must notify the other in writing at least sixty (60)
days prior to Midnight September 30th. of any year. Whenever
notice is given for changes, the nature of the changes shall be sub-
mitted by either party to the other not later than sixty (60) days
prior to Midnight September 30th. of any year.
Section 3. This agreement shall be subject to amendment at
any time by mutual consent of the parties hereto. Such amend-
ment shall be reduced to writing, state the effective date of the
At the hearing , Local 713, Inteinational Biotherhood of Electrical \VorLers, AFL, was
'permitted to intervene on the basis of its contract with the Employer The Intervenor
refused to stipulate that the Petitioner is a labor organization Petitioner was organized
for the purpose of negotiating with the Emploier concerning wages, hours, and conditions
of employment . Accordingly , we find that it is a labor organization within the meaning
of the Act.
114 NLRB No. 251.
1586 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
amendment, be executed in the same manner as this agreement,,
and be approved by the International Office of this Union.
By letter dated July 29, 1955, and received by the Employer prior to
the Mill B date, the Intervenor proposed three changes in the con-
tract, involving wage rates and certain fringe economic benefits.
However, no changes were agreed upon.
The Petitioner requested recognition on August 20, 1955. The Em-
ployer denied recognition on August 22 and the instant petition was
filed on that date.
The Intervenor contends that its contract with the Employer was
automatically renewed as it was not "changed or terminated",and
that it, therefore, bars this proceeding.
Petitioner contends that the, Intervenor's notice removed the con-
tract as a bar to a present determination of representatives, citing
American Lawn Mower Co.' In that case, the Board held that a
broad modification notice given under a contract containing cotermi-
nous modification and termination clauses implies an intent to, and
does, terminate the contract.
We do not regard the American Lawn Mower principle as applica-
ble to the present factual situation. Aside from other possible con-
siderations, the notice herein, which involves merely wages and fringe
economic benefits, is not sufficiently broad to require an implication
of intent to terminate, nor does the subsequent conduct of the parties
in relation thereto indicate such an intent.3 Accordingly, as the par-
ties took no action which forestalled the operation of the automatic
renewal clause, we find that the contract bars the petition.
In view of our determination with respect to the scope of the notice,
it is unnecessary to pass upon the applicability of the Mallinckrodt
Chemical Works' and Michigan Gear ct Engineering Company 5
cases, relied upon by the Intervenor.
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
2 108 NLRB 1589.
3 Eagle Signal Corporation, 111 NLRB 1006.
It 114 NLRB 187.
5114 NLRB 208.
Peerless Products Company and United Brotherhood of Car-
penters & Joiners of America, District Council of Kansas City,
and Vicinity , AFL-CIO, Petitioner . Case No. 17-RC-2104.
December 30, /955
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon an amended petition duly filed, a hearing was held before
Harry Irwig, hearing officer.' The hearing officer's rulings, made at the
hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.'
I International Association of Bridge , Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, Local
:,20, intervened in this proceeding.
114 NLRB No. 252.