Modine Manufacturing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 16, 1950

89 N.L.R.B. 1360 (N.L.R.B. 1950)

In the Matter Of MODINE MANUFACTURING COMPANY, EMPLOYER and.
CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS, PETITIONER
Case No. 9-RC-772.-Decided May 16,1950
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Alan Kahn, hearing officer.
The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from preju-
dicial error and are hereby affirmed.
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-member
panel [Members Houston, 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 Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.'
3. The IAM was certified by the Board in April 1948, as the repre-
sentative of employees in the unit now sought by Petitioner. Nego-
tiations between the IAM and the Employer following certification
culminated in a contract effective June 14, 1948, with a termination
date of April 30, 1950, subject to automatic renewal in the absence of
60 days' prior notice by either party. The contract also provided for
separate wage agreements, the first of which was executed on June 14,,
1948, for a period of 1 year. On March 28, 1949, the IAM and the.
Employer executed a supplemental agreement amending the original-
1 International Association of Machinists, Lodge 1382, hereinafter referred to as the
,AM, was allowed to intervene at the hearing by the hearing officer, upon showing of a.
current contractual interest. The IAM contended at the hearing that the petition should
be dismissed because the Petitioner was, in reality, fronting for one of its constituent inter-
national unions. We fail to see merit in this contention. There was no showing qy the
IAM of subterfuge or incapacity to bargain on the part of the Petitioner, or that the.
Petitioner contemplated evasion of the Act in any manner in the future.
89 NLRB No. 173.
1360
M'ODINE MANUFACTURING COMPANY 1361
contract in several respects and extending the termination date to
April 30, 1951. This supplemental agreement was made effective as
of April 30, 1949. A second 1-year wage supplement was executed on
the same date. On February 7, 1950, the Petitioner notified the
Employer that it claimed to represent the majority of its employees,
and on February 14, 1950, the instant petition was filed.
The IAM contends that the extended contract terminating on April
30, 1951, is a bar to the petition filed herein. We do not agree. The
initial contract executed by the parties in 1948, was a term con-
tract which contained no provision for reopening except for wage
adjustments pursuant to the supplemental agreements. The exten-
sion executed by the parties on March 28, 1949, in extending the orig-
inal contract's duration clearly comes within the provisions of the
Board's premature extension rule.2 The Board, applying this rule,
has held that where an agreement is prematurely extended, the ex-
tended contract constitutes a bar only until the expiration or auto-
matic renewal date of the original agreement.3 In the instant case,
the contract between the IAM and the Employer originally terminated
on April 30, 1950. The Petitioner filed its petition on February 14,
1950, well before the automatic renewal date of that contract. It is
clear, therefore, that the contract does not bar this proceeding and we
shall deny the motion to dismiss, made on that ground, by the IAM.
We find that a 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.
4. We find, and the parties agreed, that all production and mainte-
nance employees paid at an hourly rate or piecework basis, of the
Employer at its plant at Paducah, Kentucky, excluding clerical, engi-
neering, and drafting employees, plant guards, watchmen, foremen,
and all other supervisors within the meaning of the amended Act,
constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the pur-
poses 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-
2 See Republic Steel Corporation, 84 NLRB 483 , and Fourteenth Annual Report of the
National Labor Relations Board, p. 24.
2 See Republic Steel Corporation , 89 NLRB 500; Union Steel Castings Division of Blow-
Knox Co., 88 NLRB 209.
1362 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
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 employ-
ees on strike who are not entitled to reinstatement, to determine
whether they desire to be represented, for purposes of collective bar-
gaining, by Congress of Industrial Organizations or by International
Association of Machinists, Lodge No. 1382, or by neither.