International Harvester Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 21, 1948

77 N.L.R.B. 242 (N.L.R.B. 1948)

In the Matter of INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER COMPANY, EMPLOYER all d
CLAUDE B. FLEMING, AN INDIVIDUAL, PETITIONER and INTERNATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF MACIIINISTS, INTERVENOR
Case No. 16-RD-6.Decided April 01, 19418
Mr. Frank B. Scharer, of Chicago, Ill., for the Employer.
Mr. C. B. Fleming, of Amarillo, Tex., for the Petitioner.
Mr. L. Al. Fagan, of Fort Worth, Tex., and Mr. E. C. Yaeger. of
San Antonio, Tex., for the Intervenor.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at Amarillo,
Texas, on February 3, 1948, before Elsner Davis, 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 the case, the National Labor Relation-,
Board 1 makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. T11 E BUSINESS 01' THE EMPLOYER
D
International Harvester Company is a New Jersey corporation
whose general offices are located in Chicago, Illinois. It is engaged
in the manufacture of trucks, farm equipment, refrigeration and in-
dustrial power equipment in several States, and operates branch houses
and distributing points for its products in most States of the Union.
Its branch house, located in Amarillo, Texas, which alone is involved
here, serves as a wholesale and retail outlet for the Employer's
products which are shipped to the Amarillo branch from the EnI-
ployer's plants outside the State. In the past year the value of
products handled at the Amarillo branch exceeded one million dollars.
The Employer admits and we find that it is engaged in commereA
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
' 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 -man panel consisting of Board Members
Houston , Murdock, and Gray
77 N L. R. B., No 27.
242
INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER COMPANY
II. THE PARTIES INVOLVED
243
The Petitioner, an employee of the Employer, asserts that the Union
is no longer representative of the Employer's employees as defined in
Section 9 (a) of the Act.
The Union, a labor organization, was established on December 3,
1946, in Case No. 16-R-2072, as the exclusive bargaining representative
of the Employer's employees as a result of a consent election.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
On December 3, 1946, as noted above, the Union became the exclu-
sive bargaining representative of the Employer's employees as a result
of a consent election. On January 13, 1947, the Employer executed
an exclusive collective bargaining agreement with the Union for the
term of 1 year, with a provision for renewal from year to year there-
after, unless notice to modify or terminate was given by either party
at least 30 days prior to the terminal date of the contract. The Union
contends that this contract is a bar to the instant proceeding.
In resolving the issue of "contract-bar" in decertification cases, the
Board applies the same rules as have been, and still are, applied with
respect to petitions for investigation and certification of representa-
tives.2 Inasmuch as the instant petition was filed on November 20,
1947, before the effective date of the automatic renewal clause, the con-
tract executed on January 13, 1947, would not be a b^ r to a certification
proceeding.3 We accordingly find that the contract is similarly no
bar to the instant decertification proceeding.
We find that ,t 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.
We find no merit in the Union's contention that Section 8 (d) (1)
of the amended Act provided that all existing renewable contracts
are automatically renewed unless notice to terminate or modify them
is given 60 days prior to their termination date. Section 8 (d) (1) of
the amended Act defines one aspect of the obligation to bargain col-
lectively, but automatic renewal of an existing contract does not result
from failure to meet this obligation.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
We find that all mechanics, apprentices, helpers, and any other per-
sons employed by the Employer at its Amarillo, Texas, branch, using
the tools of the trade, excluding the service station foreman, service
2 Matter of Snow and Nealley Company , 76 N L R E, 390.
3 Matter of Drewry's Limited, U . S. A., Inc., 74 N. L R. B. 31.
244 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
station assistant foreman, and all other supervisors, guards, and pro-
fessional employees, as defined in the amended Act, constitute a unit
appropriate for collective bargaining within the meaning of Section
9 (b) of the Act.4
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the
purposes of collective bargaining with International Harvester Com-
pany, Amarillo, Texas, an election by secret ballot shall be conducted
as early as possible, but not later than thirty (30) days from the date
of this Direction, under the direction and supervision of the Regional
Director for the Sixteenth Region, and subject to Sections 203.61 and
203.62 of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-
Series 5, among the employees in the unit found appropriate in Section
IV, above, who were employed during the pay-roll period immedi-
ately preceding the date of this Direction, including employees who
did not work during said pay-roll period because they were ill or on
vacation 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 this election, and also excluding
employees on strike who are not entitled to reinstatement, to determine
whether or not they desire to be represented by the International As-
sociation of Machinists for the purposes of collective bargaining.
MEMBER GRAY took no part in the consideration of the above De-
cision and Direction of Election.
4 All the parties agreed that the unit established in the consent election of December 1946
was apps opriate . The description of the unit has been changed slightly to conform with
the provisions of the amended Act.