The Geltman Sponging Co. of Rhode Island

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 11, 1954

107 N.L.R.B. 748 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

74 8
THE GELTMAN SPONGING COMPANY OF RHODE ISLAND,
and INDUSTRIAL TRADES UNION OF AMERICA, Petitioner.
Case No. 1-RC-3403. January 11, 1954
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before
Torbert H. MacDonald, 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 employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the
representation of employees of the Employer within the mean-
ing of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
The Employer and Amalgamated Clothing Workers of Amer-
ica, CIO, hereinafter called the Intervenor, executed a collec-
tive-bargaining contract effective from November 14, 1951,
to November 14, 1953, and from year to year thereafter unless
30 days prior to the expiration of any such effective period
notice for modification or termination was given by either
party. By exchange of letters dated May 18, 1953, and May 27,
1953, the parties modified the contract and, among other pro-
visions, extended its term for an additional 5 years from its
initial term, to November 14, 1958. The matters upon which
no agreement had been reached and which were to be the sub-
ject of further negotiations were set forth in these letters
together with a provision for further negotiation thereof or
submission to arbitration under the contract. On October 9,
1953, the parties signed an "Implemental Agreement" em-
bodying the results of these negotiations and providing that
the "implemental" agreement shall become part of the
"existing 5-year union agreement dated May 27, 1953." The
Petitioner requested recognition by letter dated September 15,
1953, and filed its petition herein on September 21, 1953.
The Employer and Intervenor urge their contract, as modi-
fied and extended on May 27, 1953, as a bar to this proceeding.
The Petitioner contends in substance that there is no contract
bar because (1) the modifications of the original contract were
not completed and formalized until they were incorporated in
the "Implemental Agreement" on October 9, 1953, after the
petition was filed; and (2) even if the exchange of letters in
May is regarded as an effective amendment to the original con-
tract, it constitutes a premature extension of that contract and
cannot bar the petition which was timely filed with respect to
the Mill B date of the original contract.
Under the premature extension doctrine, a petition which is
timely filed with respect to the Mill B date of the original con-
107 NLRB No 151.
THE GELTMAN SPONGING COMPANY 749
tract is not barred by the extended contract.' Accordingly,
we find it unnecessary to determine whether the exchange of
letters in May 1953, qualified as an effective amendment to
the original contract ,2 for, at best , it constituted a premature
extension of the original contract . As the petition was timely
filed with respect to the automatic renewal clause of the original
contract , neither the original contract nor the supplemental
amendment is a bar to this proceeding.3
The Employer further urges that a contract with the Inter-
venor for the term July 1, 1952, to July 1, 1954, covering the
employees at the Cleveland, Ohio, plant of the Geltman Sponging
Company, a separate corporation , is a bar to this proceeding
because of the phraseology used in the coverage clause of that
contract .4 The Employer is not a subsidiary of the Geltman
Sponging Company, but the two corporations are in substan-
tially the same business and have substantially the same con-
trolling shareholders and officers , i.e., the Geltman family.
On the other hand, the Employer admits that this contract has
been applied only to the Cleveland plant , and does not contend
that a multiplant or multiemployer unit is appropriate . Further-
more, the two corporations have concurrently entered into and
administered separate contracts , covering their respective
employees and having different effective and termination dates.
Under these circumstances , we find no merit tothis contention
of the Employer.
4. The following employees of the Employer, as stipulated by
the parties , constitute a unit appropriate for the purpose of
collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the
Act.
All production and maintenance employees and truckdrivers
at the Employer's Woonsocket, Rhode Island, plant , excluding
executives , managers, foremen, office employees , guards, and
all supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in
this volume.]
Chairman Farmer took no part in the consideration of the
above Decision and Direction of Election.
'See General Electric Company (River Works ), 107 NLRB No . 21; Phelps Dodge Refining
Corporation, El Paso Plant, 106 NLRB 1684 Westinghouse Electric Corporation, 106 NLRB
No. 207. Cf. Pasco Packing Co , 106 NLRB 1223
2 Compare the Carborundum Company, 78 NLRB 91, and Pasco Packing Co , footnote 1, supra
3A contract which has been prematurely extended is a bar only so long as the original con-
tract would have been in effect. National Gypsum Company , 96 NLRB 676.
4 The pertinent part of that contract reads as follows : "by and between the Geltman Sponging
Company and its subsidiaries ( including any subsidiary or associated companies except the
Minneapolis plant, including any which may hereafter be organized or incorporated , and in-
cluding any companies or business organizations in substantially the same business in which
the majority shareholders or corporate officers shall be persons who are at present majority
or controlling shareholders or officers in the Geltman Sponging Company)...."
537593 0 - 55 - 49