Laycob Hat Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 29, 1954

107 N.L.R.B. 1009 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

LAYCOB HAT COMPANY 1009
LAYCOB HAT COMPANY and LEATHER , LUGGAGE AND
NOVELTY WORKERS UNION, LOCAL 160, AFL, Petitioner.
Case No. 14 - RC-2381 . January 29, 1954.
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Harry G.
Carlson, hearing officer. 1 The hearing officer's 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
employees of the Employer. 2
3. No 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, for the following reasons:
The petition in this case was filed on September 17, 1953.
The Employer and Intervenor assert that the petition is barred
by a contract entered into by them on that day. The Petitioner
contends that the contract in effect between the parties was not
executed until the following day, September 18, 1953, and hence
is not a bar.
The Intervenor was certified as representative of a unit of the
Employer's employees on March 2, 1950. Thereafter, following
an extended course of bargaining, 8 the Employer and Intervenor
1 The Employer and the Petitioner have filed motions to correct the transcript of evidence
taken at the hearing . The Petitioner objects to one of the corrections proposed by the Employer,
but otherwise these motions are unopposed . Insofar as the motions are unopposed , they are
hereby granted and it is ordered that the record be corrected accordingly . As to that portion
of the Employer 's motion to which objection has been filed , the motion is hereby denied.
2 Textile Workers Union of America , CIO, intervened by virtue of its contract with the
Employer . This contract, hereinafter discussed , refers both to the International and to a
local union, but contains a blank space where the number of the local would appear At the
hearing it was disclosed that no local union had been chartered to represent the Employer's
employees , but that officers of such an organization had been elected within a few days before
the hearing date. The hearing officer thereafter sustained objection to the Petitioner ' s attempt
to elicit the names of such officers , on the ground that the Petitioner was seeking only to
ascertain the compliance of these officers with the Act' s filing requirements , and that such
compliance is not the subject of litigation at the hearing . The Petitioner , calling attention to
the contract 's union- security provision , now requests the Board to remand this proceeding,
if necessary , to adduce evidence relative to the compliance status of the local union.
We affirm the hearing officer's ruling, and deny the request for a remand . There appears
to be no contention , and the record does not indicate , that any local union was in existence at
the time of execution of the contract. We are administratively informed that the local union
now at the Employer 's plant has complied with the Act ' s filing requirements.
sOn January 31, 1951 , pursuant to a stipulation for settlement of unfair labor practice
charges, the Board issued an order, and on May 16, 1951, the United States Court of Appeals
for the Eighth Circuit entered a consent decree , directing the Employer to bargain with the
Intervenor . The Employer and Intervenor assert that their contract was the result of the
course of bargaining pursuant to this decree , and that for this additional reason the contract
thereby arrived at is a bar In view , however, of our determination hereinafter set forth, we
find it unnecessary to pass upon that issue in this case.
107 NLRB No. 213.
1010 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
arrived at an agreement on September 17, 1953, and signed a
document purporting to embody its terms. The contract thus
executed was to be effective from September 17, 1953, to
September 17, 1956, and provided specific wage increases to be
effective as of September 14 in each of the years 1953, 1954,
and 1955 . 4 Upon examining a copy of the contract later in the
day, the Employer' s attorney 5 discovered that a wage reopening
clause, which had earlier been abandoned as a contractual pro-
vision, 6 had nevertheless inadvertently been copied into the
final draft of the contract . He was unable to reach the Inter-
venor's representative until the following day, at which time,
with the Intervenor ' s consent , he caused the two final pages of
the contract to be retyped , eliminating the wage reopening pro-
vision. The revised contract was then re-executed by the Inter-
venor ' s international representative and by Chester Laycob, an
official of the Employer . 7 The document thus signed on
September 18 retained the original contract ' s recital that it
was executed on September 17, but varied the duration clause
to provide that the effective and terminal dates should fall on
September 14 rather than September 17 as originally pro-
vided. 8
Upon these facts , we agree with the contention of the Employer
and Intervenor that their contractual relationship is abar to the
petition . It is clear , that onSeptember 17, 1953, the parties exe-
cuted a complete and valid written contract , such as to bar an
election upon a petition filed on that day. 9 The document exe-
cuted on September 18 physically incorporated all but two pages
of the original document and , aside from correcting an apparent
internal conflict in the provisions as to wages for the final year,
made no material revision in-the contract ' s terms . It constituted
4The date of September 14, 1953, though prior to the contract ' s execution date, was chosen
for the initial wage increase because it was the beginning of a pay period.
5 Howard Elliott. as attorney for the Employer , signed the document that was executed on
September 17. International Representative Miller signed on behalf of the Intervenor. It is
undisputed that both these individuals had fullauthority to bind their principals to the contract
6At an earlier stage of negotiations agreement had been reached for the first two yearly
wage increases , but the Employer was unwilling to grant a third increase and in its stead
proposed a provision for reopening wages at the end of the second year. Finally , however,
the Employer withdrew from this position and agreed to the third increase.
7 The revised document was also later signed by an employee , Magnolia Tyson. Although
her signature appears immediately below that of theIntervenor 's international representative,
it was not shown that she acted in any official capacity on behalf of the Intervenor , and the
record indicates that the validity of the contract was not in any way dependent upon her
signature.
8 The effective dates of the wage increases , as noted above, had already been established as
September 14 of each year.
9See Northwest Magnesite Company , 101 NLRB 85 , and Mississippi Lime Company of
Missouri, 71 NLRB 472. These cases hold that the execution of a contract bars a petition
filed on the same day, in the absence of the employer ' s actual knowledge of the petition at the
time of signing the contract . The record here shows that the Employer was not aware of the
petition in this case at the time the contract was executed on September 17. Further , although
the Petitioner had in fact notified the Employer on August 28, 1953, of its claim to represent
the employees , this notice was not followed within 10 days by the filing of a petition. Hence
such notification cannot of itself preclude a contract bar . General Electric X-Ray Corporation,
67 NLRB 997.
LOCAL 803, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF BOILERMAKERS 1011
essentially no more than a redraft intended to conform the
written contract to the actual agreement of the parties. For this
reason, we find that the contract involved in this case was
arrived at, reduced to writing, and duly executed on September
17, and that it constitutes a bar to the petition.
But in any event, whether the document signed on September
18, 1953, be regarded as merely a textual revision or as a new
and revised agreement, the petition is barred. For the Board
has held that once an agreement is duly executed, it normally
remains a bar for the duration of its proper term, 11 and that
the parties may by mutual assent renegotiate or modify any of
its provisions without thereby rendering it. vulnerable to a
pending rival claim or petition." At best, such a modification
is what took place here. In the light of the entire record, we
shall dismiss the petition.
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
10 We note that the contract involved in this proceeding is for a 3-year term. As the issue
was neither material to, nor litigated in, this proceeding, we do not determine whether the
contract might serve as a bar during the third year of its term. Normally the contract would
serve as a bar at least during its first 2 years. See Reed Roller Bit Company, 72 NLRB 927.
"Western Electric Company, Incorporated, 94 NLRB 54.
LOCAL 803, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF BOILER-
MAKERS, IRON SHIP BUILDERS AND HELPERS OF
AMERICA, AFL and NICHOLAS J. FORTE and HARBOR
SHIP MAINTENANCE CO., Party to the contract
LOCAL 803, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF BOILER-
MAKERS, IRON SHIP BUILDERS AND HELPERS OF
AMERICA, AFL and MARIO GARAFOLO and HARBOR SHIP
MAINTENANCE CO., Party to the contract
LOCAL 803, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF BOILER-
MAKERS, IRON SHIP BUILDERS AND HELPERS OF
AMERICA, AFL and JOSEPH MATKOWSKI and HARBOR
SHIP MAINTENANCE CO., Party to the contract
LOCAL 803, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF BOILER-
MAKERS, IRON SHIP BUILDERS AND HELPERS OF
AMERICA, AFL and MARIO GARAFOLO and CAMDEN
BOILER CLEANING & MAINTENANCE CO., Party to the
contract
107 NLRB No. 212.