Springfield Mill Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 9, 1950

88 N.L.R.B. 24 (N.L.R.B. 1950)

In the Matter of SPRINGFIELD MILL COMPANY, EMPLOYER and JOHN
T. NICKLAUS, PETITIONER and LOCAL 5-246, INTERNATIONAL WOOD-
WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, UNION
Case No. 36-RD-20.-Decided Jamumy 9, 1950
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing in this case was held before
Robert J. Weiner, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made
at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Pursuant to the provision 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
Houston and Murdock].
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 Petitioner, an employee of the Employer, asserts that the
Union is no longer the bargaining representative of the employees
of the Employer as defined in Section 9 (a) of the Act.
The Union is a labor organization claiming to represent employees
of the Employer.
3. The question concerning representation :
The instant petition was filed on August 3, 1949. The Union urges
as a bar to this proceeding a contract executed on August 30, 1948,
between the Employer and the Union. This contract was effective
until April 1, 1949, but provided for 1-year automatic renewal unless
notice of a desire to terminate or change the contract was given by
either party at least 60 days prior to the anniversary date.
On January 27, 1949, the Union notified the Employer, as well as
a number of other companies engaged in similar operations in the
same area, of its desire to change the provisions of the 1948 contract
in a number of respects, including hospitalization, sick leave, life
insurance, vacation, wages, etc. With respect to these matters, the
Employer, a member of the Willamette Valley Lumber Operators
88 NLRB No. 7.
24
SPRINGFIELD MILL COMPANY 25
Association, delegated authority to the Association to negotiate, but
not to sign any agreements reached, on its behalf. Negotiations were
thereupon conducted and resulted in a "joint recommendation," dated
May 18, 1949. This proposal, however, was never accepted in writing
by the Employer either in the form of a new contract or as an amend-
ment to the 1948 contract.
On January 27, 1949, the Union further notified the Employer of
its desire to make certain other "local" changes in the 1948 contract
having application only to the instant Employer, namely "seniority
and check-off." On March 30, 1949, the Union and the Employer
executed a memorandum in which they agreed :
That the working agreement between them shall remain in full
force and effect until such time as negotiations on requests for
contract changes currently being negotiated at the local union
level are either concluded or broken off by either party.
On July 26, 1949, the Union dropped its "local" demands and nego-
tiations on that subject were concluded.
Upon these facts we find that when the instant petition was filed,
there existed no contract which could serve as a bar. The original
agreement of August 30, 1948, was opened on January 27, 1949, and
its automatic renewal was thereby forestalled under the terms of that
agreement. While the memorandum agreement of March 30, 1949,
extended the 1948 agreement, it converted that contract into one
which was terminable at the will of either party. Under well-estab-
lished policy the 1948 agreement was thereby rendered ineffective as
a bar? In any event, when, on July 26, 1949, the "local" negotiations
were "concluded or broken off," the 1948 argument, as extended by
the memorandum, was by its own terms, terminated. Nor is it mate-
rial that the "joint recommendation" of May 18, 1949, may have been
accepted by all the parties as a basis for a new contract before the
instant petition was filed. The record clearly shows that no written
agreement signed by the parties resulted from this recommendation 2
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. The following employees of the Employer constitute a unit
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the mean-
ing of Section 9 (b) of the Act:
All of the Employer's employees engaged in its lumber manufactur-
ing operations at Springfield, Oregon, excluding office, clerical, and
professional employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
See Mid-Continent Coal Corp., 82 NLRB 261.
s See Herman Lowenstein, 75 NLRB 377.
26 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
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
60 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 date
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 rein-
stated prior to the date of the election, and also excluding employees
on strike who are not entitled to reinstatement, to determine whether
or not they desire to be represented, for purposes of collective bar-
gaining, by Local Union 5-246, International Woodworkers of
America, CIO.