The Stubnitz Greene Spring Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 20, 1955

113 N.L.R.B. 226 (N.L.R.B. 1955)

226 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
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 labor organizations involved claim to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce 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.
4. In accord with the agreement of the parties, we find that the fol-
lowing employees of the Employer constitute a-unit appropriate for
the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section
9 (b) of the Act:
All production and maintenance employees, including retail and
wholesale milk driver salesmen , ice cream driver salesmen , all other
truckdrivers, and working foremen, but excluding watchmen, guards,
professional employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act.2
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
2 Counsel for Local 462 filed with the Board a motion to reopen hearing, in which he
alleges that he was unable to appear at the hearing on May 26, 1955 , because of prior
commitments , and that his ( second ) request for a continuance was improperly denied by
the Regional Director . This motion is opposed by the Employer and the Petitioner. The
granting of requests for continuance is within the discretion of the Regional Director.
As the petition herein was filed on March 18, 1955 , and hearing thereon was twice resched-
uled, the first time, because the parties entered into a consent -election agreement (from
which Local 462 later withdrew ), and the second time , because of Local 462 's request for
a continuance , and as counsel for Local 462 had ample notice in advance of the May 26
hearing that his request for a further postponement was being denied, we are satisfied
that there was no abuse of discretion on the part of the Regional Director . Moreover, we
do not believe that any useful purpose will be served by reopening the hearing to receive
the evidence which Local 462 proposes to adduce . Such evidence relates to ( 1) alleged
unlawful conduct of the Employer in withholding from Local 462 dues checked off under
the current contract ; and (2 ) alleged improper campaign propaganda by the Petitioner
in connection therewith. These are matters which may properly be raised by Local 462
as objections to the election, insofar as they may affect the results of the election. See
Monroe Calculating MaCMise Cu., 109 NLRB 314. Local 462's motion to reopen is accord-
ingly denied.
The Stubnitz Greene Spring Corporation and International
Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Imple-
ment Workers of America, CIO, Petitioner . Case No. 4-RC-3677.
July 20,1955
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Charles Sandberg, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.'
Local Union #13366 , District 50, United Mine Workers of America , hereinafter re-
ferred to as the Intervenor , requests the Board to dismiss the instant petition on grounds
of contract bar. For reasons stated in paragraph 3, infra, this motion is hereby granted.
113 NLRB No. 28.
THE STUBNITZ GREENE SPRING CORPORATION 227
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
Act.2
2. The Labor organizations involved claim to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer .3
3. The Employer is a Michigan corporation engaged in the manu-
facture of automobile cushion frame assemblies and mechanical
springs for the automotive industry. The Petitioner seeks a unit of
production and maintenance employees at the Employer's Chester,
Pennsylvania, plant. The Intervenor contends that its current con-
tract with the Employer is a bar to an election at the present time.
The Employer joins with the Intervenor in urging the current con-
tract as a bar. The Petitioner contends that the current contract is a
premature extension of a prior contract, and cannot, therefore, bar
the present petition.
In August 1953, when the plant here involved was being operated
by the Employer's predecessor, Reynolds Spring Company, an elec-
tion was held in the same unit as is here sought. A majority of the
employees voted for "No Union." 4 Approximately 1 month later, on
September 14, 1953, Reynolds Spring Company entered into a col-
lective-bargaining agreement with the Intervenor. This contract,
retroactive to June 16, 1953, was to run for an initial period of 2 years,
and from year to year thereafter, unless written notice was given by
either party 60 days prior to the expiration date of the agreement.
This contract also contained a clause which provided that the contract
could ". . . be opened for wage and fringe items sixty days prior to
its first anniversary date...."
In conformity with the latter clause, the Intervenor opened the con-
tract on April 15, 1954, and thereafter negotiated a general wage in-
crease with the Reynolds Spring Company. A new contract was
drafted which was a verbatim copy of the 1953 contract, except for
the general wage increase and two other minor items.5 This con-
tract was executed by the Reynolds Spring Company and the Inter-
venor on June 24, 1954, retroactive to June 16, 1954, to run for a period
of 2 years, with the same automatic renewal provisions as those con-
tained in the 1953 contract. This contract also contained a clause
2 The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing.
8 The name of the Petitioner appears as amended at the hearing.
The Intervenor was allowed to intervene in this proceeding on the basis of its contrac-
tual interest.
4 Case Number 4-RC-2011 ( not reported in printed volumes of Board Decisions and
Orders).
6 A sentence was added to section J of article x of the contract requiring the Employer's
predecessor to notify the president of the Intervenor when an employee had been absent
for 3 days without notice Section K of article VI was also changed to require the Em-
ployer to furnish the employees with gloves rather than to pay the employees $2 each
month for the purchase of gloves.
228 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
which provided that the contract could be opened for wages only upon
60 days' notice prior to its first anniversary date.
The Employer acquired title to all property and assets of the Rey-
nolds Spring Company on December 31, 1954. Thereafter, on Janu-
ary 25, 1955, the Employer and Intervenor executed a memorandum
of agreement, which stated, inter alia, that the 1954 contract ".. .
shall remain in full force and effect, subject to all of its provisions,
for the duration of the said agreement...." 6
On April 14, 1955, the Petitioner informed the Employer by letter
that it represented a majority of its employees and requested recogni-
tion as the exclusive bargaining representative for these employees.
This letter was not answered, and on April 15, 1955, the Petitioner
filed its present petition.
As already noted, the Petitioner contends, contrary to the Intervenor
and Employer, that the 1954 contract is merely a premature extension
of the 1953 contract, and that, as the present petition was timely filed
with respect to the expiration date of the 1953 contract, there is no
contract which can be raised as a bar to an immediate election.
We find no merit in the contentions of the Petitioner. It is true
that under the premature-extension doctrine, a petition which is timely
filed with respect to the Mill B date of the original contract is not
barred by the extension contract.' However, in the instant case the
Employer was not a party to the 1953 contract or to the 1954 extension
contract between Reynolds Spring Company and the Intervenor.
Although the January 25, 1955, memorandum of agreement between
the Employer and the Intervenor purports to continue in force the
terms of the 1954 contract for its duration, it was executed by the
Intervenor and a new employer not a party to the prior agreements,
and hence it is in fact a new contract to run from January 25, 1955,
to June 15, 1956. Such contract does not arise from any preexisting
contracts between the Intervenor and Reynolds Spring Company.
The fact that the terms of the Employer's contractual obligations are
identical with those of its predecessor does not alter the fact that they
are new obligations, separately undertaken, which constitute the initial
contract between the parties.'
Accordingly, as the Employer's current contract is not a premature
extension of the 1953 contract but is a new contract which does not
expire until June 15, 1956, and as the present petition is not timely
filed with respect to the Mill B date of that new contract, we find that
the circumstances herein require the application of the Board's estab-
9 This memorandum of agreement also recites that, by acquiring the assets and property
of the Reynolds Spring Company, the Employer had assumed all the rights and obliga-
tions of the contract executed June 24, 1954.
4 The Geltman Sponging Company, 107 NLRB 748 ; General Electric Company (River
Works), 107 NLRB 70.
8 Metropotetan. Coach Lines, 112 NLRB 1429.
CLACKAMAS LOGGING COMPANY AND GUY KELLER 229
lished contract-bar rule. Accordingly, we shall dismiss the instant
petition. We find, therefore, that no question affecting commerce
exists concerning the representation of employees of the Employer,
within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7)
of the Act.
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
MEMBER RODGERS took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Order.
Robert F. Dwyer, Edwin C. Dwyer, Anthony J. Dwyer and Rose-
mary D. Frey d/b/a Clackamas Logging Company and Guy
Keller 1 and Frell C. Zink, Petitioner and Local 5-40, Interna-
tional Woodworkers of America, CIO. Case No. 36-RD-81.
July 21,1955
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 Robert J. Weiner, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from
prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
The Union contends that the petition should be dismissed (1) be-
cause Zink, the Petitioner, is a supervisor or a clerical employee; (2)
because he is an employee of Clackamas and therefore has no authority
to represent the employees of Keller; and (3) because he and Clack-
amas acted in collusion in filing the petition. We find no merit in
these contentions. As hereinafter found, Zink is not a supervisor and
there is no evidence that his clerical relationship with Clackamas
would disqualify him as a petitioner in a decertification proceeding 2
With respect to the Petitioner's representative status, there is no re-
quirement in the Act that an individual petitioner be an employee of
the employer involved.'
As to the alleged collusion on the part of Clackamas, the record
shows that Timekeeper Sanders mailed a post card requesting a copy
of the Act for the Petitioner; that the Petitioner himself typed and
circulated the petition on which signatures were secured; that Clack-
amas, at the request of employees, furnished a bus to transport prac-
tically the entire crew to attend a meeting at the National Labor
Relations Board's local office; that a partner personally paid for their
1 Herein respectively called Clackamas and Keller.
a Clyde J. Morris, 77 NLRB 1375, and Star Brush Manufacturing Co , Inc, 100
NLRB 679.
8 Bernson Silk Mills, Inc , 106 NLRB 826 , at 827; Morganton Full Fashioned Hosiery
Company, 102 NLRB 134, at 135
113 NLRB No. 27.