The Standard Oil Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 18, 1948

77 N.L.R.B. 735 (N.L.R.B. 1948)

In the Matter of TIIE STANDARD OIL COMPANY ( 0 Rio ), EMPLOYER and
OIL WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION ( CIO), PETITIONER
Case No. 8-RC-18.-Decided May 18, 1948
DECISION
AND
ORDER
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-man panel consisting of the undersigned Board
Members. *
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 Independent Oil `Yorkers of Ohio, herein
called the Intervenor, are labor organizations which claim to repre-
sent employees of the Employer.
3. No question of representation exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer, within the meaning of Section 9
(c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, for the reasons given
below.
On November 29, 1946, the Employer and the Intervenor executed
a 1-year collective bargaining contract providing for automatic re-
newal from year to year, in the absence of a thirty (30) day notice
by either party to terminate or amend the contract before any anni-
versary date. On October 7, 1947, and prior to the Mill-B date of the
1946 contract,' the Petitioner notified the Employer in writing that
it had an interest in certain, of the-employees covered by.the.Inter-
venor's contract with the Employer. On October 30, 1947, the Mill-B
* Houston , Reynolds , and Gray.
' The Ill - B date for this contract was October 30, 1947.
77 N. L. R. B., No. 121.
735
736 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
date, and 22 days after the assertion of its representation claim, the
Petitioner filed its petition.
The Employer and the Intervenor urge that the contract which
automatically renewed on October 30, 1947, is a bar to the petition
filed on that date under the rule established by Matter of General
Electric X-Ray Corporation.2 The Petitioner contends that under
the rule established by Matter of Consolidated Vultee Aircraft Cor-
poration,3 the contract is not a bar because the claim of representation
was renewed on October 24, 1947, before the Mill-B date and less
than ten (10) days before the petition was filed, by a telephone con-
versation between the Petitioner and an associate of the law firm
which customarily represented the Employer in labor matters. The
Employer asserts that neither Mr. Tritschler, the attorney with whom
the Petitioner had the telephone conversation, nor the law firm who
employed him, had been retained to represent the Employer in the
instant matter on the day of the telephone conversation, and were
therefore not agents of the Employer with respect to this case.
The law firm of McAffee, Crossman, Taplen, Harming, Newcomer
& Haglett of Cleveland, Ohio, is engaged in the general practice of
law. Among its clients is the Employer by whom it is retained as
general counsel. This law firm employs Mr. James R. Tritschler,
an attorney. The record indicated that neither the law firm nor Mr.
Tritschler have authority to act for the Employer in any matter
until that matter has been specifically referred to them by the Em-
ployer. On October 24, 1947, Mr. Ossege, the representative of the
Petitioner, had a long distance telephone conversation with Mr.
Tritschler on an arbitration matter involving a subsidiary of the Em-
ployer, and the Petitioner. At the conclusion of the telephone con-
versation, Mr. Ossege informed Mr. Tritschler that the Employer had
not replied to his letter of October 3, 1947, containing a claim to rep-
resent certain employees in the Employer's Toledo Sales Division.
Mr. Tritschler remarked that he had not been informed of the claim.
The testimony is conflicting as to whether or not Mr. Tritschler in-
dicated that he would look into the matter. The knowledge 'which
Mr. Tritschler obtained from Mr. Ossege concerning the claim had
no relation to any business on which he was at that time retained by
the Employer and Mr. Tritschler testified in this connection that he
2 67 N. L. R B. 997. This case holds that a contract executed by an Employer and a
labor organization after the assertion of a bare representation claim by a rival union
constitutes a bar to a petition filed after execution of the contract unless such claim is
perfected by filing of a petition within ten (10) days of such claim
1 74 N. L R. B. 967. In this case the Board held that where there is an outstanding
contract containing an automatic renewal clause, the ten (10) day filing period under the
General Electric X-Ray rule may appropriately he measured from the last date immediately
preceding the Mill-B date of the contract upon which a representation claim was made.
THE STANDARD OIL COMPANY 737
had no authority to approach the Employer on the subject of the
claim because the matter had not been referred to him or to the law
firm. The Petitioner was unable to produce evidence of any occasion
on which it had dealt with the law firm directly on any matter involv-
ing the Petitioner and the Employer where the law 'firm had not been
specifically retained in such natter by the Employer.
On the basis of the above facts, we find that the telephone conver-
sation between the Petitioner and Mr. Tritschler did not constitute
it notice of representation claim to the Employer within the General
Electric X-Ray and Consolidated Vultee Aircraft Corporation cases.'
Inasmuch as the petition was not filed before the Mill-B or operative
date of the automatic renewal provision of the November 1946 con-
tract, we find that this contract as renewed constitutes a bar to a pres-
ent determination of representatives under the doctrine of the Hill-B
case.' We shall dismiss the Petitioner's petitioln.e
ORDER
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire
record in the case, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders
that the Petition for Representation and Certification of Representa-
tives of Employees of the Standard Oil Company (Ohio), Toledo,
Ohio, filed by Oil Workers International Union (CIO), be, and it
hereby is, dismissed. ,
4 Knowledge to a law firm employed on a genes al retainer basis, is not knowledge to
its client unless the firm has been especially retained on the matter to which the knowl-
edge relates In re Locust Bldg Co , 299 Fed 756, 769 , Parish v Hedges, 34 App D C
21 Victor et al v Spalding ct at , 199 Mass 52, 84 N. E . 1016 , Restatement of Law of
Agency 603 , Sec 272 a Nor do we find any merit in the Petitioner 's further contention
that the case presents extenuating ciicumstances because an automatically renewable
contract is involved Matter of henry cC Allen , Ine, 68N L R B. 724, 726 1
s In this case the Board held that it was the contemplation of contracts containing such
notice provisions that "the party seeking a modification or amendment must give notice
prior to the beginning of the automatic renewal date , N L R B 346 350
6 The Employer and the Intervenoi further contend that the written claim of representa-
tion made on October 7, 1947 , was not timely because Section 8 '( d) (1) provides that
existing rene w able contracts are automatically renewed unless notice to ten urinate or modify
then is given 60 clays prior to their teimination date. This contention is without merit.
Section 8 ( d) (1) of the amended Act defines one aspect of the obligation to bargain col-
lectively , but automatic ienewal of an existing contract does not result from failure to
meet this obligation flatter of International Harvester Company, 77 N L R B 242 ,