Ingalls Shipbuilding Corp.

In the Matter of INGALLS SHIPBUILDING CORPORATION, EMPLOYER and IRWIN W. WHITTEMORE, PETITIONER and TEOHNIOAL ENGINEERS, ARCHITECTS & DRAFTSMEN'S UNION, LOCAL 127, AFL, UNION Case No. 15-RD-16.-Decided May 4, 1949 DECISION AND ORDER Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before R. Boyd Stark, 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-member panel [Members Reynolds, Murdock, and Gray]. Upon the entire record in the case the Board finds : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.' 2. The Petitioner, an employee of the Employer, asserts that the Union is no longer the representative of certain professional employees ,of the Employer as defined in Section 9 (a) of the Act. 3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the represen- tation of certain employees of the Employer, within the meaning of .Section 9 (c), (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act for the follow- ing reasons: On May 13, 1948, the Petitioner filed a petition requesting the de- certification of certain professional employees from a unit of technical and engineering employees employed by the Employer at its Pasca- goula, Mississippi, plant. This petition was dismissed by the Regional Director of the Fifteenth Region upon the ground that a collective bargaining agreement then in effect constituted a bar to an investiga- tion of representatives at that time. The Petitioner's appeal from the Regional Director's determination was denied by this Board by letter dated October 13, 1948. Simultaneously therewith, the Petitioner was advised that the dismissal of the petition was without- prejudice i See Matter of The Ingalls Shipbuilding Corporation, 73 N. L. R. B. 374. 83 N. L. R. B., No. 48. 367 368 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD to a timely refiling before the expiration date of the contract. The present petition was filed on December 17, 1948. The contract between the Employer and the Union provided that it was to be in effect for 1 year beginning December 17, 1947, and to continue in effect thereafter from year to year unless either party should give at least 60 days' notice, before the expiration of any contract year, of its desire to change or terminate the contract. Neither the Employer nor the Union served such notice. The record shows that both contracting parties consider the agreement as having been automatically renewed for a period of 1 year, terminating Decem- ber 17, 1949, and apparently take the position that such contract is a bar to this proceeding. The Petitioner, however, contends that the petition was timely filed within the terms of the Board's order of October 13, 1948. The dismissal of the original petition without prejudice to a timely refiling thereof before the expiration date of the contract, was not intended to enlarge upon the rights of the Petitioner with respect to the possible existence of a contract bar at the date of such refiling. Because the petition was filed after the contract had been automatically renewed on October 17, 1948, we find that the petition was not timely filed in accordance with the terms of the Board's order affirming the action of the Regional Director in dismissing the prior petition. Under the circumstances, we find that the contract of December 17, 1947, as automatically renewed on October 17, 1948, operates as a bar to a present determination of bargaining representatives. Accord- ingly, we shall dismiss the petition.2 ORDER Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the 'entire' record in the case, the National Labor. Relations Board hereby orders that the petition of Irwin W. Whittemore for decertification of Technical Engineers, Architects and Draftsmen's Union, Local 127, AFL, as bargaining representative' of employees of Ingalls Ship- building Corporation, Pascagoula, Mississippi, be, and it hereby is, dismissed. 2 Although Article II of the contract calls for the Employer 's cooperation in urging employees to become members of the Union, to retain such membership , and to pay their dues to the Union, such clause does not constitute a union-security provision within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. Accordingly, its existence in the contract with- out authorization under the provisions of the Act does not prevent the contract from oper- ating as a bar to the present petition; 11