Texas Paper Box Manufacturing Co.

In the Matter of TEXAS PAPER Box MANUFACTURING COMPANY, EMPLOYER and DALLAS PAPER Box WORKERS UNION No. 525, SUBORDI- NATE TO INTERNATIONAL PRINTING PRESSMEN AND ASSISTANTS UNION OF NORTH AMERICA, AFL, PETITIONER Case No. 16-B-2345.-Decided January 14, 1948 Mr. Nate Molinarro , of Dallas, Tex., for the Employer. Mr. Joe A . Wilson, of Houston, Tex., for the Petitioner. Mr. John W. Carlton, of Fort Worth, Tex., and Mr. J. W. Nance, of Dallas, Tex., for the Intervenor. DECISION AND ORDER Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at Dallas, Texas, on August 13, 1947, before Robert Silagi , 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 the case, the National Labor Relations Board makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER Texas Paper Box Manufacturing Company, a Texas corporation with its main office and principal place of business located in Dallas, Texas, is engaged in the manufacture of paper boxes. During the 12- month period preceding the hearing, it purchased raw materials valued at about $40,000, of which approximately 10 percent was shipped to its plant from sources outside the State of Texas. During the same period, it manufactured and sold finished products valued at about $40,000, of which approximately 10 percent was shipped to points outside the State. The Employer admits, and we find, that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. 75 N. L. B. B, No. 97. 799 800 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD H. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED The Petitioner is a labor organization affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, claiming to represent employees of the Employer. International Association of Machinists, Lodge No. 1015, herein called the Intervenor, is a labor organization claiming to represent employees of the Employer. III. THE ALLEGED QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION The Intervenor contends that a collective bargaining contract, signed on July 13, 1946, and automatically renewed until July 8, 1948, is a bar to a present determination of representatives. On June 28, 1946, the Board certified the Intervenor as bargaining representative of the employees in the unit sought by the Petitioner herein. On July 12, 1946, the Employer and the Intervenor executed a 1-year collective bargaining contract covering the employees in the appropriate unit effective from July 8, 1946. The agreement pro- vided for automatic renewal from year to year, in the absence of a 30-day notice by either party to terminate or amend the contract before any anniversary date. No notice of such intention was given by either contracting party before June 8, 1947, the automatic re- newal date of the agreement. The contract therefore was automati- cally renewed for an additional year ending July 8, 1948. The petition in the instant case was filed on May 20, 1947, before the automatic renewal date of the contract. It is now established that a collective bargaining agreement for a reasonable term, entered into within the year following certification of the contracting union, is a bar during its term to a petition filed by a rival union, notwithstanding the fact that the parties had been put on notice of a rival claim,' or that the contract claimed to be a bar is a second contract executed within the certification year .2 In our opinion, the reason for the rule is equally applicable to a situa- tion where, as here, an existing contract providing for a reasonable renewal term is automatically renewed during the certification year, although the original termination date of the contract may come after the anniversary date of that year. Accordingly, we find that the 1946 contract, as automatically renewed to July 8, 1948, is a bar to a present determination of representatives. Inasmuch as we have found that the contract between the Em- ployer and the Intervenor is a bar to these proceedings, we find that no question affecting commerce exists concerning the representation ' Matter of Con P. Curran Printing Company, 67 N L. R. B. 1419. 2 Matter of Quaker Maid Company, Incorporated, 71 N. L R. B. 915. TEXAS PAPER BOX MANUFACTURING COMPANY 801 of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) ( 1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act. We shall, therefore, dismiss the Petition herein. ORDER It is hereby ordered that the petition for investigation and cer- tification of representatives of employees of Texas Paper Box Manu- facturing Company, Dallas, Texas, filed herein by Dallas Paper Box Workers Union No. 525, subordinate to International Printing Press- men and Assistants Union of North America, AFL, be, and it hereby is, dismissed. MEMBER HOUSTON took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Order. 3