Springfield Mill Co.

In the Matter of SPRINGFIELD MILL COMPANY, EMPLOYER and JOHN T. NICKLAUS, PETITIONER and LOCAL 5-246, INTERNATIONAL WOOD- WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, UNION Case No. 36-RD-20.-Decided Jamumy 9, 1950 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing in this case 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. Pursuant to the provision 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 [Chairman Herzog and Members Houston 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 Petitioner, an employee of the Employer, asserts that the Union is no longer the bargaining representative of the employees of the Employer as defined in Section 9 (a) of the Act. The Union is a labor organization claiming to represent employees of the Employer. 3. The question concerning representation : The instant petition was filed on August 3, 1949. The Union urges as a bar to this proceeding a contract executed on August 30, 1948, between the Employer and the Union. This contract was effective until April 1, 1949, but provided for 1-year automatic renewal unless notice of a desire to terminate or change the contract was given by either party at least 60 days prior to the anniversary date. On January 27, 1949, the Union notified the Employer, as well as a number of other companies engaged in similar operations in the same area, of its desire to change the provisions of the 1948 contract in a number of respects, including hospitalization, sick leave, life insurance, vacation, wages, etc. With respect to these matters, the Employer, a member of the Willamette Valley Lumber Operators 88 NLRB No. 7. 24 SPRINGFIELD MILL COMPANY 25 Association, delegated authority to the Association to negotiate, but not to sign any agreements reached, on its behalf. Negotiations were thereupon conducted and resulted in a "joint recommendation," dated May 18, 1949. This proposal, however, was never accepted in writing by the Employer either in the form of a new contract or as an amend- ment to the 1948 contract. On January 27, 1949, the Union further notified the Employer of its desire to make certain other "local" changes in the 1948 contract having application only to the instant Employer, namely "seniority and check-off." On March 30, 1949, the Union and the Employer executed a memorandum in which they agreed : That the working agreement between them shall remain in full force and effect until such time as negotiations on requests for contract changes currently being negotiated at the local union level are either concluded or broken off by either party. On July 26, 1949, the Union dropped its "local" demands and nego- tiations on that subject were concluded. Upon these facts we find that when the instant petition was filed, there existed no contract which could serve as a bar. The original agreement of August 30, 1948, was opened on January 27, 1949, and its automatic renewal was thereby forestalled under the terms of that agreement. While the memorandum agreement of March 30, 1949, extended the 1948 agreement, it converted that contract into one which was terminable at the will of either party. Under well-estab- lished policy the 1948 agreement was thereby rendered ineffective as a bar? In any event, when, on July 26, 1949, the "local" negotiations were "concluded or broken off," the 1948 argument, as extended by the memorandum, was by its own terms, terminated. Nor is it mate- rial that the "joint recommendation" of May 18, 1949, may have been accepted by all the parties as a basis for a new contract before the instant petition was filed. The record clearly shows that no written agreement signed by the parties resulted from this recommendation 2 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 following employees of the Employer constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the mean- ing of Section 9 (b) of the Act: All of the Employer's employees engaged in its lumber manufactur- ing operations at Springfield, Oregon, excluding office, clerical, and professional employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. See Mid-Continent Coal Corp., 82 NLRB 261. s See Herman Lowenstein, 75 NLRB 377. 26 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD DIRECTION OF ELECTION As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining with the Employer, an election by secret ballot shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later than 60 days from the date of this Direction, under the direction and super- vision of the Regional Director for the Region in which this case was heard, and subject to Sections 203.61 and 203.62 of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations, among the employees in the unit found appropriate in paragraph numbered 4, above, who were employed during the payroll period immediately preceding the date of this Direction of Election, including employees who did not work during said payroll 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 rein- stated prior to the date of the election, and also excluding employees on strike who are not entitled to reinstatement, to determine whether or not they desire to be represented, for purposes of collective bar- gaining, by Local Union 5-246, International Woodworkers of America, CIO.