International Harvester Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 10, 1950

88 N.L.R.B. 627 (N.L.R.B. 1950)

In the Matter Of INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER COMPANY, INDUSTRIAL
POWER ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT PROVING GROUNDS, EMPLOYER
and LOCAL UNION #428, INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING
ENGINEERS , A. F. of L., PETITIONER
Case No. 01-RC-1014.Decided February 10, 1950
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before Ben Grodsky,
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 National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members
Reynolds and Murdock].
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. The Employer contends that a contract between itself and the
Intervenor, dated October 19, 1948, covering the employees in the
proposed unit was automatically renewed for a further term of 1 year
on October 19, 1949, and constitutes a bar to a present determination
of representatives. In reply, the Petitioner contends that the contract
was reopened by a timely notice prior to its latest automatic renewal
date, and that because negotiations for a new or modified contract
had not yet been closed at the time the petition was filed in this pro-
ceeding, the contract cannot be deemed to operate as a bar.
1 International Union, United Automobile , Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers
of America (UAW-CIO), herein referred to as the "Intervenor ," with whom the Employer
alleges it has a current contract, entered an appearance at the hearing herein and was
represented by an observer , but made no formal motion to intervene in the proceedings.
In view of the obvious interest of this union in the election hereinafter directed, we shall
treat the union as an intervenor.
88 NLRB No. 134.
882191-51---41 627
628 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Article XXIII of the contract provides that it shall remain in force
until October 19, 1949, and thereafter from year to year unless either
party shall give 60 days' notice in writing in advance of such date or
any anniversary thereof to the other party of its desire to make changes
and of the specific changes desired or to terminate the agreement.
Section 1 (a) of Article XV provides "that on or after August 20,
1949, either the Company or the Union may propose to review general
wage rates."
About August 12, 1949, the Intervenor sent the Employer a letter
which in principal part reads as follows :
60-DAY NOTICE TO EMPLOYER
Date August 12, 1949
To INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER COMPANY, IPED Field,
P. 0.°Box 1049, Phoenix, Arizona.
This is a 60-day notice to you that we propose to (modify)
(terminate) our collective bargaining contract.
117 e hereby request you to meet and confer with us for the pur-
pose of negotiating the terms of a (modified) (new) contract.
The modifications which we propose are, among others, as
follows :
1. Wages.
The Petitioner contends that the foregoing letter prevented the
contract from being automatically renewed. We agree. Although
the letter is somewhat ambiguous, we are of the opinion that it con-
stitutes a notice to make changes or terminate the agreement under
Article XXIII thereof rather than a proposal to review general wage
rates under Article XV.
In support of this conclusion, we note that the letter gives 60 days'
notice in writing which is required to terminate the agreement under
Article XXIII, whereas no written notice is required for the purpose
of reviewing general wage rates under Article XV. Furthermore, it
is highly significant that the letter is dated August 12, 1949, which
was an appropriate date for exercise of the power possessed by each
of the contracting parties to prevent the automatic renewal of the
contract for another year. Indeed, only 6 days remained in which
that power could have been exercised during the then current con-
tract term. In contrast therewith, the power merely to propose a
review of general wage rates could have been exercised at any time
after August 20, 1949, without regard to the termination date of the
contract, and under the contract would nest have been appropriately
exercised at an earlier date.
INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER COMPANY 629
We are not unmindful of the fact that negotiations between the
Employer and the Intervenor have been limited to discussions relative
to the Intervenor's request for a wage increase. However, in view of
the foregoing factors, we construe the letter of August 12, 1949, as
intended to prevent the automatic renewal of the October 19, 1948,
agreement, and therefore such agreement constitutes no bar to a
present determination of representatives.'
We find that a question affecting commerce exists concerning the
representation of certain employees of the Employer within the mean-
ing of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The following employees of the Employer constitute a unit ap-
propriate for collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b)
of the Act :
All mechanics industrial power engineering equipment, operators
industrial power engineering equipment A and B, service maintenance
men industrial power engineering equipment, and utility laborers,
employed at the Employer's Phoenix, Arizona, plant, excluding
guards, watchmen, professional employees, supervisors as defined in
the Act, and all other employees.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION 3
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 this case was
heard, and subject to Sections 203.61 and 203.62 of National Labor
Relations Board Rules and Regulations, among the employees in the
unit found appropriate in paragraph numbered 4, above, who were
employed during the payroll period immediately preceding the date
of this Direction of Election, including employees who did not work
during said payroll 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 re-
instated prior to the date of the election, and also excluding employees
on strike who are not entitled to reinstatement, to determine whether
they desire to be represented, for purposes of collective bargaining,
by Local Union #428, International Union of Operating Engineers,
2 Worthy Paper Company Association, 80 NLRB 19; E. I. duPont de Nemoars d Company,
Inc., Neoprene Plant, 73 NLRB 439; Duquesne Light Company, 71 NLRB 336.
3 Any participant in the election herein may, upon its prompt request to, and approval
thereof by, the Regional Director, have its name removed from the ballot.
630 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
A. F. of L., or by International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft
and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW-CIO), or
by neither.