United States Finishing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 15, 1948

79 N.L.R.B. 699 (N.L.R.B. 1948)

In the Matter Of UNITED STATES FINISHING COMPANY, EMPLOYER a'nd
TEXTILE WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, CIO,' PETITIONER
Case No. I-RC-65.Decided September 15, 1948
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing in this case was held at Daniel-
son, Connecticut, on May 20, 1948, before Thomas H. Ramsey, hear-
ing officer . The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are
free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. The Employer's
exceptions to rulings made by the hearing officer excluding testimony
as to the existence of good faith in bargaining between the Employer
and the Intervenor, and as to the relevancy of the CIO's contracts with
other employers, are overruled for reasons discussed hereafter under
paragraph numbered 3.2
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 labor organizations named below claim to represent em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. The question concerning representation :
The Petitioner held contracts with the Employer from 1941 to 1945,
at which latter date a strike called by the Petitioner was held by the
Employer to be a breach of the existing agreement, terminating the
I The hearing officer granted a motion, tiiithout objection , to substitute the name of the
Textile Workers Union of America , CIO, for Federation of Dyers, Finishers , Printers and
Bleachers of America , TWUA, CIO, wherever such appeared in the record. Local 135,
United Textile Workers of America , A. F. of L., hereinafter referred to as the Intervenor,
was allowed to intervene , without objection at the hearing.
= Inasmuch as the issues and positions of the parties are clear and complete in the exist-
ing record, the Employer 's request for oral argument is hereby denied.
*Chairman Herzog and Members Reynolds and Murdock.
79 N. L. R. B., No. 91.
699
700 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
contract. Thereafter, on January 17; 1946, the Employer recognized
the Intervenor as the representative of its employees and entered into
a contract with the Intervenor, which was to remain in effect until
January 17, 1948, with provision for automatic renewal, on a year-to-
year basis, in the absence of 60 days' notice from either party prior to
the termination date. In June -1947, the Intervenor requested a reop-
ening of the contract according to its terms, for discussion of revision
of wage rates. On August 20, 1947, the Intervenor and the Employer
signed a new contract which superseded the old and was to extend from
the date of signing until August 20, 1950. On November 17, 1947,
the Petitioner notified the Employer by telegram of its claim to repre-
sentation, and the. Employer acknowledged receipt of the claim by
letter dated November 18, 1947. The petition was filed on November
25, 1947.
The Employer and the Intervenor contend` that the extended con-
tract is a bar to these proceedings. It is a well settled Board' policy
that a prematurely extended contract, such as' this, is not a' bar to a
representation proceeding, where notice has been given to th6 Em-,
plover of the Petitioner's claim before the operative date of the auto-'
matic renewal provision of the original contract.3 We find without
merit the contention that the doctrine of premature extension should
not be applied in the instant proceeding because the negotiations for
the August 20, 1947, contract were carried on in good faith and were
allegedly motivated by the so-called grace period allowed by the Labor
Management Relations Act of 1947, for 'contracts not in accordance
with its terms 4 We have previously held that good faith in bar-
gaining or changed economic conditions do not prevent the operation
of the rule of premature extension.' There is nothing in the circum-
stances of this case which would warrant making an exception to this
rule. We find that a 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.
4. The appropriate unit:
The following employees constitute a -unit appropriate for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b)'-
of the Act : all employees of the United States Finishing Company's
textile plant at Sterling, Connecticut, excluding executives, office and
clerical employees, laboratory and, professional employees, interplant
truck drivers, department heads, watchmen, guards, and supervisors
as defined in the Act. ,
' See Worth Hardware Company. Inc., 71 N. L. R B 684
' See Sections 102, 103 , 104, Labor Management Relations Act. 1947.
6 See Virginia-Lincoln Corporation, 63 N. L. R. B. 590; Blair Limestone Company, 70
N L R B 689.
UNITED STATES FINISHING COMPANY
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
701
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining with the United States Finishing Com-
pany, Sterling, Connecticut, an election by secret ballot shall be con-
ducted as early as possible, but not later than 30 days from the date
of this Direction, under the direction and supervision of the Regional
Director for the First Region, and subject to Sections 203.61 and
203.62, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-
Series 5, among the employees in the unit found appropriate in para-
graph numbered 4, above, who were employed during the pay-roll
period immediately preceding the date of this Direction, including
employees who did not work during said pay-roll period because they
were ill or on vacation or temporarily laid off, but excluding those
employees who have since quit or been discharged for cause and have
not been rehired or reinstated prior to the date of the election, and
also excluding employees on strike who are not entitled to reinstate-
ment, to determine whether they desire to 'be represented by Textile
Workers Union of America, CIO, or by Local 135, United Textile
Workers of America, A. F. of L., for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining, or by neither.