Interstate Brick Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 18, 1967

167 N.L.R.B. 831 (N.L.R.B. 1967)

INTERSTATE BRICK COMPANY 831
Interstate Brick Company and Clayworkers Union,'
Petitioner and United Steelworkers of America,
AFL-CIO,' Intervenor Case 27-RC-3247
October 18,1967
DECISION AND ORDER
By MEMBERS FANNING,JENKINS, AND ZAGORIA
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of
the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
Regional Director for Region 27 issued and served
upon the parties herein a notice of hearing. Pur-
suant to Section 102.67 of the National Labor Rela-
tions Board Rules and Regulations, as amended, by
direction of the Assistant Regional Director for Re-
gion 27, this case was transferred to the Board for
decision. Thereafter, all the parties entered into a
Stipulation of Facts and of the Record. The parties
waived their right to a hearing in the matter and
agreed that the said stipulation with the attached ex-
hibits shall be the only evidence received or con-
sidered by the Board and that, based thereon, the
Board may enter a Decision and Order herein.
Briefs filed by the Petitioner and the Intervenor
have been duly considered by the Board in making
its decision in this case.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connec-
tion with this case to a three-member panel.
Upon the basis of the stipulation, the briefs, and
the entire record in this case, the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the Act and it will effectuate the pur-
poses of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to
represent certain employees of the Employer.
3. Upon the stipulated record, we make the fol-
lowing findings:
The record discloses that on February 10, 1966,
the Regional Director for Region 27 certified Steel-
workers as bargaining representative for a unit of
the Employer's production, construction, and main-
tenance employees.3 Following the certification,
Steelworkers and the Employer engaged in collec-
tive-bargaining negotiations. However, no agree-
ment had been reached when, on May 9, 1966, the
employees decided to strike. The strike lasted from
May 9, 1966, to June 1, 1966. Subsequent to the
strike, Steelworkers and the Employer entered into
a collective-bargaining agreement, which by its
terms is effective from June 2, 1966, to June 14,
1967. On June 27, 1966, Steelworkers filed an un-
fair labor practice charge4 which, as amended on
February 8, 1967, alleged that the Employer was
engaging in conduct violative of Section 8(a)(1), (3),
and (5 ) of the Act. Following an investigation of the
matters alleged in the charge , the Acting Regional
Director for Region 27 notified Steelworkers, by
letter dated February 28, 1967, that certain of the
allegations contained in the charge had been
dismissed and that the remaining allegations were
being disposed of pursuant to an informal settle-
ment agreement . This settlement agreement, ex-
ecuted by the Employer , was approved by the Act-
ing Regional Director on February 28, 1967, and
was intended to remedy certain alleged violations
of Section 8(a)(5) which occurred on or after
November 16, 1966 . On March 15 , 1967, the Em-
ployer initiated compliance with the settlement
agreement by posting the requisite notice to em-
ployees. Thereafter on May 16, 1967, the Regional
Director notified the Employer and Steelworkers
that the unfair labor practice proceeding was being
closed upon compliance with the settlement
agreement . 5 No objection was raised by any party
to this action . Prior to the expiration of the collec-
tive-bargaining agreement between Steelworkers
and the Employer , Steelworkers notified the Em-
ployer that it desired to negotiate a new agreement.
One negotiating session between the parties took
place prior to the filing of the instant petition by
Clayworkers on June 23, 1967.
The(only issue before us for determination is
whether or not the instant petition was timely filed
with respect to the settlement agreement. Clay-
workers contends that it would be inequitable to
deny the employees their right to an election at this
time because of the settlement agreement, espe-
cially when Steelworkers had more than 9 months
of collective bargaining prior to the commission of
the alleged unfair labor practices and an additional
4 months after approval of the settlement agree-
ment . Steelworkers contends that the petition
should be dismissed because it has not had a
reasonable time after the settlement agreement in
which to effectuate its purposes.
From the foregoing , it is clear that less than 4
months had elapsed from the date of the settlement
agreement to the date the petition was filed. Under
such circumstances , we find that the parties have
not had a reasonable time in which to effectuate the
purposes of the settlement agreement and, there-
fore, the processing of a representation petition and
the direction of an election at this time would only
result in a frustration of the settlement agreement.
Accordingly, we shall dismiss the petition.6
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the petition herein be,
and it hereby is, dismissed.
1 Herein called Clayworkers.
Herein called Steelworkers
Case 27-RC-2924
Case 27-CA-2062
A decertification petition (27-RC-176) filed on March 17 , 1967, by
Ronald Gallagher, an individual , and a representation petition
(27-RC-3222) filed by Clayworkers on April 13, 1967, were dismissed
167 NLRB No. 125
by the Regional Director on the grounds that the petitions were untimely
filed At the time these petitions were filed, the affirmative provisions of
the settlement agreement had not yet been satisfied . Requests for Review
filed by the Petitioner in each case were denied by the Board on April 26
and May 3, 1967, respectively
6 See Frank Becker Towing Company, 151 N LRB 466