Sanson Hosiery Mills, Inc.

In the Matter of SANSON HOSIERY MILLS, INC. (FORMERLY ARTCRAFT HOSIERY COMPANY), EMPLOYER and J. E. SMITH, JACK B. VANCE, AND MARZINE GRACE (COMMITTEE FOR DECERTIFICATION), PETITIONER and UNITED TEXTILE WORKERS, AFL, LOCAL No. 171, UNION Case No. 15-RD-14.-Decided June 28, 1919 DECISION AND ORDER Upon an amended petition for decertification, duly filed, a hearing in this case was held at Meridian, Mississippi, on April 1, 1949, before Charles A. Kyle, hearing officer. 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 Houston, Reynolds, and Murdock]. 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 Petitioners are employees of the Employer and assert that the Union is no longer the bargaining representative, as defined in Section 9 (a) of the amended Act, of the Employer's employees desig- nated in the amended petition.' The Union was certified by the Board as the exclusive bargaining representative of the Employer's employees on May 2, 1947 2 3. The alleged question concerning representation : On November 19, 1947, the Union and the Employer signed a con- tract containing no provision regarding termination or duration ' The Union moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that the Petitioners are fronting for a labor organization , allegedly existing , and not in compliance with Section 9 (f), (g), and (h) of the amended Act . While the original petition was filed on behalf of the "Meridian Arteraft Local," testimony at the hearing showed that there is no extant organ- ization of that name and that the Petitioners have never attempted to act as the collective bargaining representative of the employees seeking certification and deny any such inten- tion. The motion to dismiss is, therefore , denied. See Matter of Mountain States Tele- phone and Telegraph Company, 83 N. L R B 773 2 Matter of Artcraft Hosiery Company, Meridian Division, 73 N. L R B . 808, 71 N. L R. B. 1474. 84 N. L. R. B. No. 75. 654 SANSON HOSIERY MILLS, INC. 655 other than a clause authorizing reopening of wage schedules by the Union on 10 days notice. On November 19, 1948, the Employer noti- fied the Union by letter that it had been informed that a petition for decertification was to be filed and that the Employer regarded its contract with the Union terminated as of November 19, 1948. On the latter date, the instant petition for decertification was filed by the Petitioners. The Union contends that the 1947 contract was intended to extend for a term of 2 years 3 and that it is, therefore, a bar to this proceeding. The Petitioners and the Employer maintain that the contract is not a bar because it was terminable at will and was, in fact, terminated by action of the Employer on November 19, 1948. The contract, inasmuch as it contains no provision for duration or termination, is clearly one of indefinite duration rather than being terminable at will. In the interests of stability, the Board has deter- mined that such a contract of indefinite duration, where it is not in the form of an extension of an expiring agreement, should bar an in- vestigation of representatives, during the initial 2 years of its ex- istence.' We find no reason to depart from that rule in this case, even though the Employer has unilaterally attempted to terminate the agreement. Furthermore, we find it immaterial to the disposition of the issues in this case, that the Employer's action herein may have created some uncertainty as to the legal effect of the contract' at the present time and possibly unsettled industrial relationships in this plant .5 i The Union moved at the hearing for a continuance in order that witnesses might be produced to testify as to the understanding of the parties at the time of negotiations. This motion was denied by the hearing officer Following the hearing, the Union moved that the Board reopen the record and take further testimony on this issue. This motion and motions in opposition made by the Employer and the Petitioners are denied in view of our decision dismissing the petition , and the reasons supporting said decision. 4 See Matter of Herboth Tractor Co , 79 N. I. R. B 431 ; Matter of Schaeffer Body, Inc , 78 N. L. R . B 1247, Matter of Filtrol Corporation, 74 N L. R B. 1307. The Board early ruled that a certification or a contract could not be challenged for a maximum period of 1 year This protected period was then extended to 2 yeais in cases where contracts of that duration were customary in the industry . Later, this 2-year protection was extended to all contracts Matter of Reed Roller Bit Company, 72 N L R B 927 Immediately there- after the sane protection was granted to contracts of indefinite duration or those of unusually long terms Matter of Puritan Ice Company, 74 N L R B 1311 5 See foi example , Matter of Marvel Schebler Division Borg-Warner Corporation, 56 N L R. B. 105; Matter of Robert Gair Company, Inc, 64 N. L R B. 1, where the Board ruled that when one party has attempted to abiogate or treat a fixed term contract as a nullity before the stated termination date, the contract will still bar a petition if so urged by the other contracting party. We have also held that where a particular contract has been breached , or has otherwise failed to achieve industrial peace and stability, the con- tract may still serve as a bar. See Matter of Yellow Transit Company, 73 N L R B 424; Matter of Elivood Machine & Toot Company, 61 N. L R B. 1618; Matter of White Bros Smelting Corp., 61 N L. R B. 340; Matter of DeBardeleben Coal Corporation, 51 N L R B 1412 In all of these cases, contracts were held to bar petitions despite the fact that the wholesale defections from the contracting union' s ranks had put in issue its majority status, and the contracts had patently failed to provide "stability." 656 DECISIONS OF . NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Inasmuch as the petition in the instant case was filed before the close of the 2-year protected period of the agreement, we find that it is barred by the contract between the Employer and the Union. Accordingly, we find that no question concerning representation 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, and we shall dismiss the petition. ORDER Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the petition for decertification of representatives be, and it hereby is, dismissed.