The Absorbent Cotton Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 26, 1962

137 N.L.R.B. 908 (N.L.R.B. 1962)

908 -DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
any and all of such activities, except as such right may be affected
by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization
as a condition of employment, as authorized by Section 8(a) (3)
of the Act.
INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIR-
CRAFT, AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF
AMERICA, AFL-CIO,
Labor Organization.
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
LOCAL 899, INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTO-
MOBILE, Ainca T, AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT
WORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO,
Labor Organization.
Dated---------------- By--------------------------- --------
(Representative ) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional
Office, 124 School Street, Boston 8, Massachusetts, Telephone Number,
Lafayette 3-8100, if they have any question concerning this notice or
compliance with its provisions.
The Absorbent Cotton Company , Petitioner and Textile Work-
ers Union of America , AFL-CIO, and Its Affiliated Local No.
193.1 - Case No. 14-Rte-430. June 26, 1962
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, a hearing was held before Thomas W.
Seeler, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hear-
ing 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
Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization,, claiming to represent em-
ployees of the Employer.. .
3. The Employer and the Union have engaged in collective. bar-
gaining for the Employer's production and maintenance employees
since 1937, and have, executed successive labor contracts covering these
employees since that date. , The Union has never been certified as the
1:'3The+name 'of the Union appears . as'amended at the hearing.
137 NLRB No. 93.
THE ABSORBENT COTTON COMPANY 909
collective-bargaining representative of the employees in the unit. The
Employer filed the instant petition during the third year of its current
3-year contract with the Union and seeks an election in the uncertified
contract unit. No other labor organization seeks to represent the em-
ployees in the unit, nor do the employees themselves seek an oppor-
tunity to change or oust their bargaining representative. Neither
does the Employer assert that it doubts the Union's majority status.
The Employer contends, inter alga, that it desires the benefits of a
certification. Additionally, the Employer contends that as the current
contract is in its third year, it does not bar the petition. The Union
argues that the contract constitutes a bar to the petition.
Recently, in Montgomery Ward & Co., Incorporated,2 we considered
a petition filed by an employer in the third year of its current 5-year
contract with a certified union. We decided that hereafter a contract,
regardless of its duration, will bar, during its entire term, petitions of
either the employer or the union who are parties to the agreement.
This case did not involve, and we did not pass on, the question of
whether a contract between an employer and an incumbent uncertified
union will bar the employer's petition beyond its first 2 years.' The
instant case presents this precise question. Here, the Employer is pe-
titioning in the third year of a 3-year contract and the incumbent
Union is uncertified.
The reasons set forth in Montgomery Ward are equally applicable
to a petitioning employer who is a party to a current contract with
an uncertified union. We therefore perceive no valid reason for ac-
cording to such an employer rights that are different from those of
an employer who has a current agreement with a certified union. Ac-
cordingly, we hold that whether or not the union is certified, an em-
ployer's petition is barred by a current contract to which it is a party
-for the entire term of the contract. We therefore find that the instant
petition, filed more than 150 days prior to the expiration date of the
current contract, is untimely'
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
MEMBERS RODGERS and LEEDOM, dissenting :
We dissent. For the reasons we set forth in our dissenting opinion
in Montgomery Ward & Co., Incorporated, 137 NLRB 346, we
would direct an election in this proceeding.
2 137 NLRB 346.
3lbid. at footnote 5.
See Deluxe Metal Furniture Company, 121 NLRB 995 , 999, 1000. Inasmuch as the
petition was filed before May 1, 1962, the modification in Leonard Wholesale Meats, Inc.,
136 NLRB 1000, is inapplicable.