The Racquette River Paper Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 25, 1949

85 N.L.R.B. 835 (N.L.R.B. 1949)

In the Matter of THE RACQUETTE RIVER PAPER COMPANY, EMPLOYER
and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF PAPER MAKERS, A. F. L.,
PETITIONER
Case No. 3-RC-258.-Decided August 25, 1949
DECISION
AND
ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before David F.
Doyle, 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. At the hearing, the Employer and
Racquette River Employee's Council, herein called the Intervenor,
moved to dismiss the petition. For the reasons stated in paragraph
3, below, the motion is hereby granted.
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 Herzog and Members
Reynolds and Gray].
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 and the Intervenor are labor organizations claim-
ing to represent employees of the Employer.
3. The alleged question concerning representation :
The Employer and the Intervenor contend that a collective bargain-
ing contract executed by them on April 1, 1948, for 1 year, and auto-
matically renewed by failure to give the requisite 60-day notice, con-
stitutes a bar to this proceeding. The contract contained a wage
reopening clause which permitted such reopening once upon 30-day
notice, on or after October 1, 1948. Pursuant to this clause, the parties
reopened the contract, but no wage increase was agreed upon. How-
ever, the parties agreed then that either should have the right to re-
open for wages once more before April 1, 1949, the expiration date
of the original agreement. Neither party gave notice to the other
of its desire to terminate or modify this contract before January 30,
85 N. L. R. B., No. 143.
857829-50-vol. 85-54 835
836 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1949, its Mill B date. On February 28, 1949, however, the Inter-
tenor, pursuant to the wage reopening agreement, requested negotia-
tions "for a new contract." Following this request, and after the
Employer had indicated to the Intervenor that the only reopening
permitted under their agreement was for wages, the parties negotiated
a new wage agreement. It was signed on April 5, 1949. In the
meantime, on March 31, 1949, 2 months after the Mill B date, the
Petitioner notified the Employer of its claim to representation, and
of the filing of its petition with the Board.
Although the Intervenor's request to negotiate "for a new con-
tract" pursuant to the wage reopening agreement was ambiguous, it
is clear that the parties reopened the contract for wages only. The
contract itself provided for such a reopening, and therefore this action
did not open up the entire contract.' Accordingly, we find that the
contract of April 1, 1948, as automatically renewed is a bar to this
proceeding, and we shall dismiss the petition.2
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition herein be, and it hereby iR,
dismissed.
I See Greenville Pinishing Company, 71 N. L. R. B. 436.
2 We find the Petitioner ' s contention that the Intervenor is defunct to be wholly without
merit . The events discussed in this decision show that the Intervenor is an actively
functioning labor organization . In addition the record shows that the Intervenor has
processed many grievances during the past year , and has conferred frequently with the
Employer on matters concerning the employees.