Pacific Northwest Alloys Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 26, 1950

91 N.L.R.B. 1323 (N.L.R.B. 1950)

In the Matter Of PACIFIC NORTHWEST ALLOYS CORPORATION, EMPLOYER
and UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER
"Case No. 19-RC-609.-Decided October 26, 1950
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Howard A. McIntyre,
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 powers in connection with this case to a three-mem-
ber panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Reynolds].
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 Employer and the Intervenor contend that a collective bar-
gaining agreement executed on March 4, 1949, for 1 year, and auto-
matically renewed for another year to.March 3, 1951, is a bar to
this proceeding. The contract contains a clause permitting wage
reopening "every 6 months, upon expiration of 60 days after either
party" has given- written notice of a desire to renegotiate wages.
The Petitioner contends that the contract is not a bar because the
parties opened it by prematurely negotiating with respect to wages,
and also by discussing other issues not concerned with wages.
In late May 1950, a group of employees, members of the Intervenor,
orally requested W. T. McGinnis, the Employer's plant manager,
to discuss a wage raise. ' McGinnis asked whether the request meant
1 For the reasons given in paragraph 3, below, the motion to dismiss the petition, made
by the Intervenor, International Chemical Workers' Union, Local No. 365, AFL, is hereby
granted.
91 NLRB No. 201.
1323
1324 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
reopening the contract; the men answered that they understood the
contract could not be reopened at that time 2 unless both parties agreed
to do so. McGinnis then said that the Employer would not consent
to reopen, but he thought some wage adjustment might be agreed
to as a voluntary increase, although he himself had no authority to
do more than relay their request to the Employer's president and
board of directors. He then suggested that the men take the subject
up at a union meeting and come back with a specific request. On
May 23, 1950, a committee of employees was elected at a union meet-
ing, instructed to see McGinnis and ask for a 121/2-cent raise across-
the-board. The committee had two meetings with McGinnis, who
refused to recommend an increase of more than 5 cents.
At these meetings the group also discussed certain improvements
in working conditions, as well as the possibility of the Employer's
granting a union shop and checkoff. The evidence shows that -Mc-
Ginnis and the men agreed that the particular working conditions
in issue were grievance matters,3 and there was no thought of a con-
tract change to cover them. The committee's desire for a union shop
was discussed only as a matter for negotiation when the current con-
tract should terminate.
When the Employer was notified that the petition herein had been
filed, it refused to continue the meetings with the committee. No
agreement on the amount of a wage increase had been reached.
Upon the record as a whole, we believe that these discussions were
intended to be, and were, informal attempts to-meet recognized needs
of the employees. The evidence does not, in our opinion, show a-
mutual determination of the parties to enter into a new contract.
Accordingly, we find that the contract of March 4, 1949, as auto-
matically renewed, it a bar to this proceeding.4 We shall therefore
dismiss the petition.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition filed herein be, and it hereby
is, dismissed.
2 In the words of one member of the group : "due to the terms of our existing contract,
we cannot go in there and make any demands in any sense of the word , that anything we get
has got to come from the kindness of their heart."
3 As a result of the discussion the Employer increased the number of furnace men
employed.
4 Republic Steel Corporation, 64 NLRB 387 ; Robert (lair Company, Inc., 64 NLRB 1 :
and cf. West End Chemical Company, 89 NLRB 611.