Stroehmann Brothers Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 1, 1958

120 N.L.R.B. 752 (N.L.R.B. 1958)

752 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Stroehmann Brothers Company and Dan Stolicker, Walter Moore
and Frank DeSisti, Petitioners and Bakery and Confectionery
Workers' International Union of America, and its Local 354
(Independent). Case No. 4-RD-192. May 1, 1958
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before a hearing
officer of the National Labor Relations Board.' 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 National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Leedom and Members
Bean and Fanning].
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 organization named below claims to represent certain
employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of certain 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
meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act: 3
All inside production employees at the Employer's Sayre, Pennsyl-
vania, plant, excluding garage and plant maintenance employees,
1 The petition and other formal papers are hereby amended to show the correct names
of the Employer and of the Union, as they appear in the caption . The Petitioners, em-
ployees of the Employer, assert that the Union is no longer the representative , as defined
in Section 9 (a) of the Act, of the employees designated in the petition.
The Union contends that no question concerning representation exists on the grounds
that ( 1) the petition was filed within the year following its certification as bargaining
representative, and (2 ) it was not filed 60 days prior to the expiration date of its con-
tract with the Employer . As to (1), the Union was certified as bargaining representative
of the employees involved herein on July 11 , 1957. About November 1957, the parties
agreed to extend the terms of an already expired contract, with certain modifications,
until February 5, 1958. The present petition was filed on January 15 , 1958. In the
Ludlow Typograph Company case, 108 NLRB 1463, the Board held that where an Em-
ployer and a certified union enter into a collective-bargaining agreement within the cer-
tification year, the certification year merged with that of the contract, after which
there is no need to protect the certification further, the contract becoming controlling with
respect to the timeliness of a rival petition . We find that the rule of the Ludlow case
is applicable to the present case , and that the petition was not untimely because it was
filed prior to the end of the certification year General Electric Company , Apparatus
Service Shop , 115 NLRB 1424; The Union Forging Company, 114 NLRB 1250, 1251-1254.
As to (2), it is sufficient answer that the contract has already expired and no new con-
tract has been executed Accordingly , we,find no merit in the Union 's contention that
the petition was not timely filed
9 The stipulated unit, described above , is the certified unit which was incorporated into
the contract between the Employer and the Union.
120 NLRB No. 107.
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS 753
driver-salesmen, office clerical employees , guards, and supervisors as
defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election a omitted from publication.]
*As Section 9 (c) (3) precludes the Board from holding an election within 12 months
from the date of a valid election , we shall amend the Direction of Election to provide that
the election shall not be held until after the anmveisary date of the last election , on a date
to be determined by the Regional Director.
International Association of Machinists, Local Lodge 889, AFL-
CIO; Oklahoma State Building and Construction Trades Coun-
cil, AFL-CIO; and Lawton Building and Construction Trades
Council , AFL-CIO and Freeman Construction Company, and
W & L Construction Company, et al. Cases Nos. 16-CC-76 and
16-CC-79. May 2, 1958
DECISION AND ORDER
On December 19, 1957, Trial Examiner George A. Downing issued
his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding,-finding
that the Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain
unfair labor practices and recommending that they cease and desist
therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy
of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter the Respond-
ent International Association of Machinists, Local Lodge 889, AFL-
CIO, filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting
brief.
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 Leedom and Members Rodgers and Bean].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermedi-
ate Report, the exceptions, the brief, and the entire record in the case,
and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of
the Trial Examiner.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in the case and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that International Association of
Machinists, Local Lodge 889, AFL-CIO, Oklahoma State Building
and Construction Trades Council, AFL-CIO, and Lawton Building
120 NLRB No. 106.
483142-59-vol. 120-49