Oswego Falls Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 28, 1954

110 N.L.R.B. 621 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

OSWEGO FALLS CORP. 621
and equipment for all stores, purchases valued at approximately $16,-
500 originated in the State of New York, and purchases valued at
approximately $18,100 originated outside the State of New York.
Of the latter, purchases valued at approximately $9,000 originated
outside the State of Pennsylvania. Shipments to all the Employer's
stores are made directly by suppliers or by the Employer from its
Pittsburgh warehouse.
During 1953, the Employer received $563,000 in gross revenue from
services performed at all its stores. From the Jamaica store during
that period, the Employer received $93,000 in gross revenue. The
Employer sells no products that cross State lines.
Neither the Employer's multistate chain of service establishments
nor the operations of its Jamaica store covered in this case meet the
jurisdictional standards established in our recent decision of Hogue
and Knott Supermarkets.' Under these circumstances, and for the
reasons set forth in the cited case, we dismiss the instant petition.
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
1 110 NLRB No. 68.
OSWEGO FALLS CORP.' and SYRACUSE PHOTO ENGRAVERS UNION,
LOCAL 20, INTERNATIONAL UNION OF PHOTO ENGRAVERS OF NORTH
AMERICA, AFL, PETITIONER
OSWEGO FALLS CORP. and GEORGE TROMBLAY, PETITIONER and FULTON
OSWEGO-FALLS SEALRIGHT LOCAL No. 54, INTL. BRO. OF PULP,
SULPHITE & PAPER MILL WORKERS, AFL. Cases Nos. 3-RC-1398
and'3-RD-92. October 28,1954
Decision and Order
Upon petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a consolidated 2 hearing was held before John W.
Irving, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the
hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
T pon 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.
The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing.
2 As consolidation is a matter for administrative discretion, we find no merit to the
contention of the Employer and Union that the proceedings herein were improperly con-
solidated . Pacific Metals Company, Ltd., 91 NLRB 696, footnote 2; Pacific Maritime
Association, 100 NLRB 1259, footnote 7.
110 NLRB No. 99.
622 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the represen-
tation of employees within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and-
Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
Prior to March 21, 1954, the expiration date of their old contract,
the Employer and Union began negotiations for a new contract. On
March 27, 1954, the union bargaining committee agreed to accept the
Employer's proposal resulting from the negotiations, and recommend
it to the union membership.' By letter dated March 29, 1954, the
Union notified the Employer that its proposal was approved by the
union membership and that the contract was to be effective from
March 21, 1954, to March 21, 1955. From the time the Employer re-
ceived the Union's signed communication of acceptance, the parties
considered that the agreement had been properly concluded, and that
the actual signing of a final contract document by both parties was
a formality to be accomplished at their convenience. Thus, although
the contract had not been formally executed, certain provisions
thereof, such as increases in wages and insurance, were put into effect
immediately. Thereafter, on April 15, 1954, the decertification peti-
tion herein was filed. The next day, April 16, 1954, the contract was
prepared in final form and signed by the Employer and Union.
Thereafter, on April 20,1954, the certification petition herein was filed
involving the same employees covered by the decertification petition.
Contrary to the Employer and the Union, the decertification Peti-
tioner contends that their contract is no bar to this proceeding because
it had not been signed by both parties until after the filing of the
decertification petition herein. We find no merit in the contention of
the Petitioner. We note particularly that the agreement resulting
from negotiations and the Union's acceptance thereof were both in
written form; that the parties considered the agreement to have been
properly concluded and put into immediate effect certain important
provisions thereof; and that both parties signed a formal contract
within a reasonable time after agreement had been reached. In these
circumstances, we find, for contract-bar purposes, that the contract
was completed on March 29, 1954, prior to the date of the filing of
the decertification petition herein. Accordingly, we find that the cur-
rent contract of the Employer and Union is a bar to this proceeding
and we shall therefore dismiss the petitions herein.
[The Board dismissed the petitions.]
MEMBERS MURDOC$ and DODGERS took no part in the consideration
of the above Decision and Order.
0
8 During the course of the negotiations, when agreement was reached on the particular
items, they were immediately written down by the parties. Generally at the end of each
bargaining session, a secretary would type a final copy of what was agreed upon. Thus,
the union bargaining committee had a memorandum of the Employer's proposal for sub-
mission to the union membership