Semi-Steel Casting Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 9, 1950

88 N.L.R.B. 609 (N.L.R.B. 1950)

In the Matter of SEMI-STEEL CASTING COMPANY, EMPLOYER and
UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER
Case No. 14RCD31. Decided February 9, 1950
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before Glenn L. Mol-
ler, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing
are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
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-labor organizations involved claim to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. International Molders and Foundry Workers' Union of North
America, Local 59, AFL, herein called the Intervenor, contends that
a contract between it and the Employer constitutes a bar to the pro-
ceeding.
On November 29, 1943, following a consent election, the Intervenor
was certified as the exclusive bargaining representative for the em-
ployees in a unit stipulated to be appropriate herein. Thereafter, on
January 25, 1944, the Intervenor filed an unfair labor practice charge
against the Employer, alleging that the Employer had refused to bar-
gain in violation of Section 8 (5) of the Act. On March 14, 1946, the
Board found that the Employer had violated Section 8 (5) of the Act 1
and issued a Decision and Order which was sustained on March 13,
1947, by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.2
The decree of the Court of Appeals enforcing the aforesaid Board's
decision was stayed until October 13, 1947, on which date the United
States Supreme Court denied the Enmployer's application for a writ of
certiorari.3
166 NLRB 713.
7160 F. 2d 388 (C. A. 8).
3 332 U. S. 758.
88 NLRB No. 128.
609
610 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On August 28, 1948, the Employer, posted notices of compliance
in its plant in the form required by the Board's order and the Court's
decree. Although the order and decree also required the Employer
to bargain with the Intervenor upon the latter's request, it was not
until September 15, 1948, that the Intervenor requested a bargaining
conference with the Employer. Almost a year later, after a series
of conferences beginning on September 21, 1948, a contract was
executed on August 30, 1949. However, before the execution of the
contract, the Petitioner on August 8, 1949, requested recognition from
the Employer as the exclusive bargaining representative of its em-
ployees. This request was refused and on August 12, 1949, the Peti-
tioner filed its petition herein.
On the basis of the above facts, the Intervenor argues that it was
entitled to a 1-year period free of rival claims in which to negotiate
a contract with the Employer, that the 1-year period began on Oc-
tober 27, 1948, the date on which the 60-day posting period of com-
pliance expired and the effect of the prior unfair labor practice of
the Employer had presumably been dissipated; and that inasmuch as
its contract was executed on August 30, 1949, within that 1-year period,
the contract is a bar to this proceeding.
We agree with the Intervenor that it should not be penalized for
the time which elapsed from the date of its certification until the,
termination of litigation involving the unfair labor practices.' We do
not agree, however, that the beginning of the 1-year period of collec-
tive bargaining free of rival claims was postponed until October 27,
1948, the expiration date for the posting of the compliance notices.
The established practice of the Board has been that such period
begins to run from the effective date of the Court's decree.5 It follows,
therefore, in the absence of circumstances warranting an exception,
that the contract in this case, in order to constitute a bar to a rival
union's petition, should have been consummated by October 13, 1948.
Upon consideration of the present record, we believe that there is
insufficient evidence to justify a deviation from the usual practice.
In fact, the evidence clearly shows that the Intervenor did not use
reasonable dispatch in requesting the Employer to engage in collective
bargaining. As stated above, it was incumbent upon the Intervenor
after the decree became effective to ask the Employer for a bargaining
conference. The Intervenor waited for a period of almost 1 year
before making such a request. In view of the foregoing and the entire
record herein, we find that the contract, which was executed after the
Cf. Allis-Chalmers, 50 NLRB 306, 312.
° Mascot Stove Company, 75 NLRB 427 ; Ellis -Klatscher & Co., 79 NLRB 183.
SEMI-STEEL CASTING COMPANY 611
filing of the petition and more than 1 year after the effective date of
the court decree, is not a bar to this proceeding.
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. In accordance with the stipulation of the parties, we find thati
the following employees of the Employer constitute a unit appropriate.
for purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section.
9 (b) of the Act:
All production and maintenance employees at the Employer's:
St. Louis, Missouri, plant, excluding general office employees, clericals,,
guards , professional employees , and supervisors as defined in the Act..
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the
purposes 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-
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 dateo
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 employees,
on strike who are not entitled to reinstatement , to determine whether
they desire to be represented , for purposes of collective bargaining, by
United Steelworkers of America, CIO, or International Molders and_
Foundry Workers' Union of North America, Local 59, AFL, or by
neither.
882191-51--40