Keystone Tanning and Glue Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 22, 1950

92 N.L.R.B. 201 (N.L.R.B. 1950)

In the Matter of KEYSTONE TANNING AND GLUE COMPANY, EMPLOYER
and UNITED PAPER WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER
Case No. 5-RC-692.-Decided November 22, 1950
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before H. Raymond Cluster,
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 power in connection with this case to a three-mem-
ber 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. The labor organizations involved claim to represent employees
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 Petitioner seeks to represent a unit of production and main-
tenance employees at the Employer's tannery at Iron Gate, Virginia.
On July 10, 1950, the Petitioner mailed a letter to the Employer stat-
ing that it represented a majority of the employees of the Employer
and requesting that the Employer meet and bargain with it. The
Employer received this letter on July 12, 1950. The Petitioner filed
its petition with the Board on July 17, 1950.
The Intervenor, International Fur and Leather Workers Union and
its Local 400 contends that.the Petitioner's claim of representation
was untimely and that a contract which it executed with the Employer
on July 11, 1950, constitutes a bar to this proceeding. The evidence
establishes that pursuant to a Board certification in August 1945,
Local 400 had been the bargaining agent of the employees in question,
and had been party to a contract covering the unit which was executed.
92 NLRB No. 49.
201
202 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
on May 1, 1947, for a period of 2 years.' This contract had been.
prevented from automatically renewing itself through a timely no-
tice to the Employer from Local 400 that it desired to negotiate a.
new contract. This notice was followed by approximately 15 months.
of bargaining between the parties culminating in the reaching of a
tentative agreement on July 6, 1950, which was embodied in writing
on July 11,2 1 day before the Employer received notice of the Peti-
tioner's claim.' The Employer had no knowledge of the Petitioner's.
claim prior to receipt of the Petitioner's letter. on July 12. Under'
these circumstances, we find that since the Employer had not received.
the Petitioner's claim by July 11, and since it had no actual. kno*-ledge
of that claim until after it had executed the July 11 contract, the.
contract is a bar to a determination of representatives at this time.''
We shall, therefore, dismiss the petition.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition filed herein be, and it hereby-
is, dismissed.
' Local 400 and its international, affiliated with the C. I. 0, during this period, withdrer,
their affiliation in May 1950.
, At the hearing the Petition contended that the new agreement. incorporating the-
terms of the May 1947 contract, was invalid because the Local's name in the 1947 contract
included the words "C. I. 0." which it was no longer entitled to use when the new agree-
ment was reached. However, the memorandum of agreement which incorporates the 1947
contract contains the correct name of the Local , as an unaffiliated union , and the new-
contract is clear and unambiguous . The Petitioner ' s contention is, therefore , rejected.
3 During the prolonged period of bargaining, the parties continued the terms of the
May 1, 1947, contract in effect, by oral agreement.
,Northwestern Publishing Company ( WDAN ), 71 NLRB 167; Snyder Engineering-
Corporation, 90 NLRB 783 . Although some question was raised at the hearing concerning
an'alleged schism in the contracting Union , the evidence is insufficient to show a schism.