The Anaconda Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 18, 1955

114 N.L.R.B. 530 (N.L.R.B. 1955)

530 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
All employees engaged in the repairing, painting, and servicing of
equipment at the Employer's Kalispell, Montana, operation, excluding
office employees, clerical employees, parts department employees,
watchmen, guards, and all supervisors as defined in the Act .4
9
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
AcT1NG.CHAIRMAN RODGERS took no part in the consideration of the
above Decision and Direction of Election.
There is no dispute as to the appropriate unit.
The Anaconda Company 1 and Manford L. Reeves, Petitioner and
Coso Mine, Mill and Chemical Workers, Local No. 841, of the
International Union of Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers.
Case No. 01-RD-261. October 18,1955
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 Louis A. Gordon,
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
theAct.
2. The Petitioner, an employee of the Employer, asserts that the
Union, which is currently recognized by the Employer as the bar-
gaining representative of the employees designated in 'the petition,
is no longer the representative as defined in Section 9 { a) of the Act,
3. Since 1951, at least, the Employer and the Union have, been in
contractual relations with each other. In that year, the parties ex-
ecuted a contract, effective from July 1, 1951, to June 30, 1953, pro-
viding for its automatic renewal in the absence of a 60-day notice
to modify. As amended by supplemental agreements and by opera-
tion of the automatic renewal clause, the contract continued in effect
up to and including June 30, 1955. Following negotiations instituted
at an undisclosed date before June 8, 1955, the parties reached agree-
ment on a new contract, to become effective July 1, which the parties
initialed on June 8 and later formalized without change on June 18.
The Employer and Union customarily followed such a practice ', in
executing their agreements.
% The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing
114 NLRB No. 91.
"THE ANACONDA COMPANY 531
In "the first part of June" and before June 8, 1955, the Employer
was served with documents stating that the signatory employees no
longer desired to be represented by the Union. On June 10, the instant
decertification petition was filed. The Union contends that its contract
with the Employer, initialed on June 8, 1955, bars this proceeding.
Assuming, as contended by the Union, that the initialed contract
was a completed, binding agreement on June 8, we hold, nevertheless,
that this contract does not bar a present determination of representa-
tives since employees made a timely request to the Employer for with-
drawal of recognition from the Union before the initialing of the
contract and followed such request with the filing of a petition within
10 days thereafter.2
In addition, the Union moves to dismiss the petition on the ground
that the Petitioner is "fronting" for a noncomplying labor organiza-
tion. Evidence was adduced at the hearing that the Petitioner signed
a document which challenged the bargaining rights of the incumbent
Union and urged the Employer to recognize the United Mine Workers.
Evidence was further adduced that this and other similar documents
were presented to the Employer in the presence of a United Mine
Workers representative. There is no evidence in the record, however,
that the United Mine Workers gave the Petitioner, or the employee
committee of which he was a member, any financial or other assistance.
On the basis of the foregoing, we deny the motion to dismiss and find
that the Petitioner is not acting as a "front" for a noncomplying
union.'
Accordingly, we find that a question affecting commerce exists con-
cerning 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 parties agree, and we find, that the following employees
constitute a unit appropriate for, the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of theAct:
All construction, production, and maintenance employees at the Em-
ployer's Darwin and Shoshone mines and mills at or near Darwin and
Tecopa, California, who are paid on a regular hourly rate basis, ex-
cluding clerical and technical employees, temporary and part-time
employees, watchmen, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
MEMBER MURDOCK took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Direction of Election.
2 fiaquiau, Hardu a a Company, 108 NLRB 955
v .lfa eehester Randw tag Co , 91 NLRB 1257, John Dritz d Sons, 88 NLRB 1521
387644-56--vol. 114-35