Paducah Battery Co.

In the Matter Of PADUCAH BATTERY COMPANY, EMPLOYER and INTER- NATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANI- ZATIONS, PETITIONER Case No. 9-RC-675.-Decided January 9, 1950 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before Allen Sins- heimer, Jr., 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 labor organization involved claims to represent certain em- ployees of the Employer. 3. Local Union No. 816, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL, herein called Intervenor, contends that a contract be- tween it and the Employer constitutes a bar to the proceeding. This contention is based on the claim that such contract automatically re- newed itself at the end of its term. The Petitioner and the Employer contend that the contract is not a bar because it was opened up for negotiations by the parties and therefore was not automatically re- newed at the end of its term. On August 23, 1948, following a consent election, the Intervenor was certified as the exclusive bargaining representative for the em- ployees in a unit stipulated to be appropriate herein. Thereafter, on January 9, 1949, the Intervenor and the Employer entered into a con- tract covering the same employees. Among other things, this contract provided that, 88 NLRB No. 1. 32 PADUCAH BATTERY COMPANY 33 This agreement shall be effective until October 1, 1949, and con- tinue in full force and effect thereafter from year to year unless notice in writing is given by either party sixty days prior to the expiration of this agreement of the desire to amend, change or terminate the agreement. In the case of a request to amend or change the agreement the proposed changes will be submitted in writing at the time notice is given and it is agreed that negotia- tions thereon will begin within ten days of such notice. On July 29, 1949, the Intervenor advised the Employer in writing that it desired to amend the contract and stated that the proposed amendments would be forwarded "in the very near future." Over a month later the Intervenor sent the Employer the proposed amend- ments. Subsequently, negotiations were held on these amendments but agreement was not reached on any point. On November 3, 1949, the petition herein was filed. On these facts, the Intervenor argues that the contract was auto- matically renewed on October 1, and therefore is a bar to this proceed- ing. It is contended by the Intervenor that inasmuch as its notice of amendment did not contain the proposed changes, as provided by the clause in the contract quoted above, such notice was not effective to stay the automatic renewal of the agreement. We do not agree. The parties negotiated on the contemplated changes for more than a month. Whatever defects there may have been in the Intervenor's notice were not considered substantial and must be deemed to have been waived by the parties. The Intervenor also asserts that even if the notice of amendment was effective under the contract, the automatic renewal was not stayed since the Intervenor gave only a notice to amend and not a notice of termination. But the contract specifically provides that a notice of a "desire to amend, change or terminate the agreement" will prevent the contract from being automatically renewed. We therefore find that the contract in question is not a bar to this proceeding. 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. In accordance with the stipulation of the parties we find that the following employees of the Employer constitute a unit appropri- ate for purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Sec- tion 9 (b) of the Act: All production and maintenance employees at the Employer's Pa- ducah, Kentucky, plant, except for all office clerical employees, field inspectors, nurses, laboratory technicians, guards, professional em- ployees, and supervisors as defined in the Act. 34 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 30 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 they desire to be represented, for purposes of collective bargaining,, by International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricul- tural Implement Workers of America, Congress of Industrial Organi- zations, or Local Union No. 816, International Brotherhood of Elec- trical Workers, AFL, or neither.