Samuel Stamping and Enameling Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 20, 1951

97 N.L.R.B. 635 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

SAMUEL STAMPING AND ENAMELING COMPANY 635
5. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent has engaged
and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a)
(1) of the Act.
6. All editorial and news department employees, including staff writers, State
editors, telegraph editors, copy readers, reporters, assistant sports editors, society
editors, file clerks, and copy boys ; and excluding editor, assistant to the editor,
managing editor, assistant managing editor, sports editors, city editors, and other
supervisors as defined in the Act, and part-time and temporary employees, con-
stitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
7. American Newspaper Guild, C. I. 0., was on November 30, 1949, and at all
times since has been, the exclusive representative within the meaning of Section
9 (a) of the Act of all employees in the aforesaid unit for the purposes of
collective bargaining.
8. By refusing to bargain collectively with the aforesaid Union as the exclusive
representative of the employees in the appropriate unit, the Respondent has
engaged and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8 (a) (5) of the Act.
9. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication in this volume.]
SAMUEL STAMPING AND ENAMELING COMPANY and UNITED STEEL-
WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER . Case No. 10-RC-1570.
December -20,1951
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 Paul L. Harper,
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-
member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members 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 Intervenor has represented the employees of the Employer
tender the terms of a contract executed on October 10, 1942, for 1
i Local No. 31, Stove Mounters International Union of North America, AFL, was allowed
to intervene on the basis of an existing collective bargaining agreement with the Employer.
97 NLRB No. 82.
636 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
year and automatically renewable annually thereafter in the absence
of 30 days' prior notice by either party. On August 8, 1951, the
Intervenor wrote the Employer requesting that this contract be
opened for wage negotiations and other changes. Meetings took place
between representatives of the Employer and of the Intervenor on
August 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12, and on the last date the contract was
signed.2
Meanwhile, on Friday, August 11 at 5: 14 p. m., a telegram addressed
to W. R. Samuel, President, Samuel Stamping and Enameling Co.,
was filed with Western Union by the Petitioner; in which the Petitioner
claimed to represent the employees of the Employer. In accordance
with standing instructions from the Employer to Western Union with
respect to telegrams received after the Employer's hours, a telegraph
operator telephoned A. L. Johnstone, treasurer of the Employer, at his
home. The operator informed Johnstone that she had a rather lengthy
message from the Petitioner and attempted to read it several times.
However, Johnstone told her to hold the message until Monday and
send it to the Employer on the simplex (teletype) machine.' Samuel
received the actual telegram over the teletype system about 9 a. m.
Monday morning, August 13, 1951.
It is the position of the Intervenor that the Employer did not re-
ceive the Petitioner's notice of claim until August 13, the day after
the execution of the contract between the Employer and the Intervenor
on Sunday, August 12, 1951, and that the contract is a bar.' The Em-
ployer concurs in this position. The Petitioner asserts that the Em-
ployer received notice of the claim of representation on August 11,
1951,5 and that the filing of the petition within 10 days thereafter on
August 20 removed the contract as a bar .6
We find merit in the position of the Petitioner. Johnstone was
notified of the telegram pursuant to instructions of the Employer,
which were apparently designed to insure that a responsible official of
the Employer would be available to receive telegrams after working
2 Although it is set forth in the contract that the contract was entered into on August 11,
1951 , all parties agree that it was executed on August 12, 1951 , and we so find.
a Ordinarily when a telegram is received by western Union for the Employer during
working hours, the simplex department of Western Union sends it to the Employer on
the teletype system
4 The Intervenor also contends that even if the Petitioner had given notice of its claim
on Saturday , August 11, the contract was fully agreed to on August 11 ; and that as the
typing and signing of the contract followed the agreement as an uninterrupted sequence,
the general rule that notice received before the actual signing of a contract prevents the
contract from becoming a bar is inapplicable . We find no merit to this contention for
it is well established that only a contract reduced to writing and signed can constitute a
bar. See for example, Newman-Crosby Steel Corporation, 73 NLRB 513.
5In view of our finding hereinafter that the contract is no bar, we need not consider
the alternative contention of the Petitioner that the contract is a "members only " contract
which cannot operate as a bar.
General Electric X-Ray Corporation , 67 NLRB 997.
SAMUEL STAMPING AND ENAMELING COMPANY 637
hours. Furthermore, Johnstone had participated in some of the nego-
tiations which led to the execution of the contract on August 12,
1951, and was aware of the circulation of handbills at the, Employer's
plant by the Petitioner. In view of these facts, when Johnstone was
informed by the telegraph operator that the telegram was from the
Petitioner, it is reasonable to believe that he was aware of the nature
of the telegram,7 and was under an obligation to permit delivery of it
before the contract with the Intervenor was signed. Accordingly, his
lack of knowledge of the contents of the telegram may not be used to
support an argument that the Employer was not notified of the Peti-
tioner's claim of representation until the day after the contract was
executed. We find that the telegram of August 11 from the Petitioner
constituted effective notice of Petitioner's claim to representation on
that date, and that the contract executed the following day is not a
bar. 8
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 that all employees 9 at the Employer's Chattanooga,
Tennessee, plant, including appliance testers, pattern and templet
makers, model makers, and plant clerical employees,10 but excluding
office and clerical employees, salesmen, technical employees, profes-
sional employees, guards," and supervisors as defined in the Act,
constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act .12
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
' The Intervenor maintains that Johnstone did not customarily accept messages addressed
to Samuel , but only those addressed to the Company The record does not support this
contention . Further, we note that Johnstone gave as his reason for not listening to the
contents of the telegram that he was in a hurry to take his family to dinner and the
operator had stated it was a lengthy telegram.
9 See Groveton Papers Company , Inc. (Northumberland Branch ), 96 NLRB 1369;
Evan - Milling Company, 94 NLRB 1127; cf. Snyder Engineering Corporation , 90 NLRB 783.
The Carborundum Company, 78 NLRB 91, relied on by the Intervenor, is clearly distin-
guishable . In that case , a letter was addressed to the plant manager of the employer, in
which the petitioner claimed recognition. The letter was received at the plant on the
same day a new contract was executed by the employer and the intervenor, but, in the ordi-
nary course of business , the letter was not received by the plant manager until the followink
day. The Board concluded that the employer did not have actual knowledge of the peti-
tioner's claim when it executed the contract, and held the contract a bar. In the instant
proceeding Johnstone, an agent of the Employer designated to receive telegrams after
the Employer's working hours, had actual knowledge of a telegram from the CIO the day
before the contract was signed by the Employer and the Intervenor. The only reason
Johnstone did not have knowledge of the contents of the telegram was because of his
refusal to allow the operator to read the telegram to him.
9 Included in the unit are the three part-time watchmen who spend more than 50 per-
cent of their time in production work.
10 Included in this category are the timekeeper , stockroom clerk, and time checkers.
11 Excluded from the unit as guards are the four full -time watchmen.
12 The parties are in complete agreement concerning the appropriate unit, and the
inclusion and exclusion in the various categories of employees therein.