Pacific Gamble-Robinson Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 11, 1950

89 N.L.R.B. 293 (N.L.R.B. 1950)

In the Matter of PACIFIC GAMBLE-ROBINSON COMPANY, EMPLOYER
and GENE BARRETT, ET AL., PETITIONERS and INTERNATIONAL BROTH-
ERHOOD or TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS
of AMERICA, LOCAL UNION No. 845, A. F. OF L., UNION
Case No. 18-RD-34.-Decided April 11, 1950
DECISION
AND
ORDER
Upon a petition for decertification duly filed, a hearing was held
before Clarence A. Meter, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rul-
ings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby
.affirmed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor
.Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members
Reynolds and Styles].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
National Labor Relations Act.
2. The Petitioners, employees of the Employer, assert that the
Union is no longer the representative of the Employer's employees
-designated in the petition.'
The Union, a labor organization affiliated with the American Fede
ration of Labor, is currently recognized by the Employer as the exclu-
sive bargaining representative of- the employees designated in the
petition.
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 Union contends that. its current. contract with the Employer
covering the employees involved herein constitutes a bar to this pro-
•ceeding.. The Petitioners maintain that the contract is not a bar,
The Employer' s name appears as amended at the hearing.
89 NLRB No. 43.
293
294 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
because each of the employees covered by the contract has indicated
his desire no longer to be represented by the Union. The Employer
is neutral.
The first contract executed between the Employer and the Union
expired, in accordance with its terms; on'October 31, 1948. On Jana-
ary.19, 1949, after a special meeting of the union members working
for the Employer, the parties executed a new agreement, providing for
renewal of the old contract until October 31, 1949, and for annual
automatic renewal thereafter unless either party gave 60 days' written
notice to change or modify the agreement.' On August 19, 1949, the
union members covered by the contract decided at a special meeting
not to modify or change its terms. Neither the Employer nor the
Union gave notice to terminate the contract. The instant petition was
filed thereafter, on November 29, 1949.
As neither party gave the required termination notice, it is clear
that the contract, in accordance with its terms, has been automatically
renewed and is now in full force and effect. . In line with long estab-
lished principles, applicable to both certification and decertification-
proceedings, the contract bars a present investigation of representa-
tives.3 The Petitioners argue, however, that in this instance the
contract is not a bar because all the employees in the unit have now
decided.to repudiate the bargaining representative.4
Apparently, they rely upon certain cases 5 in which, despite existing
contracts, we have directed elections for the purpose of resolving the
question of representation. Unlike the situations presented in those
cases, however, this case reveals no formalized collective action at a
union meeting affecting the existence• or continued functioning oft the
Union. In this situation, we do not find such confusion in the normal
bargaining relationship between the Employer and the exclusive
bargaining representative of its employees so that the relationship
between them no longer promotes stability. in, industrial relationships.
Indeed, the record.merely shows that, only 3 months after the Union's
status as bargaining representative had been reaffirmed in special meet-
ing, each of the employees chose to eliminate any bargaining agent.
Under these circumstances, we find no reason to deviate from fixed
contract bar rules. Accordingly, we find that the contract constitutes
2 On November 17, 1948, the Union had been certified as the bargaining representative
for the employees here involved by the Minnesota State Labor Conciliator.
Mill B, Inc., et at., 40 NLRB 346; All-American Metal Products, Inc., 82 NLRB 563.
After the filing of the petition herein, the three employees who were union members
resigned from the Union.
5 See Boston Machine Works Company, 89 NIRB '59, and cases cited therein.
PACIFIC GAMBLE-ROBINSON COMPANY 295
a bar to the present proceeding and we shall, therefore, dismiss the
petitions
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition filed by Gene Barrett, et al.,
for the decertification of International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Local Union No.
845, A. F. of L., as bargaining representative of the employees of
Pacific Gamble-Robinson Company, Albert Lea, Minnesota, be, and it
hereby is, dismissed.
6 See Maurice A. Knight Sons' Co., 84 NLRB 816.
The Petitioner resists the contract bar contention on the further ground that the Union
is defunct . We find no merit in this contention . The record shows that the Union is
presently functioning as a labor organization on behalf of other employees of various em-
ployers in and about Albert Lea , Minnesota , and that it is willing and able , to represent
the employees of the Employer in accordance with the terms of the existing contract.