National Machine Co.

In the Matter of NATIONAL MACHINE COMPANY, EMPLOYER and UPHOLSTERERS' INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL No. 25, AFL, PETITIONER Case No. 14-R-1414.-Decided August 21,1946 Mr. Morris J. Levin, of St. Louis, Mo., for the Employer. Wiley, Craig c Armbruster, by Mr. Harry H. Craig, of St. Louis, Mo., for the Petitioner. Mr. W. C. Riley, of St. Louis, Mo., for the IAM. Mr. Seymour M. Alpert, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND ORDER Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was'held at St. Louis, Missouri, on May 20,1946, before Charles K. Hackler, Trial Examiner. The Trial Examiner's rulings made at the hearing are free from prej- udicial 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 National Machine Company, a Missouri corporation with its plant and offices located at St. Louis, Missouri, is engaged in the manufacture of metal upholstered furniture. During the year preceding the hear- ing, the Employer received a substantial amount of raw materials for use in its business from points outside the State of Missouri. During the same period, it shipped a substantial amount of its finished prod- ucts 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. II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED The Petitioner is a labor organization affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, claiming to represent employees of the Employer. 70 N. L. R. B., No. 23. 234 NATIONAL MACHINE COMPANY 235 International Association of Machinists, District No. 9, herein called the IAM, is -a labor organization claiming to represent employees of the Employer. III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION As the result of a consent election conducted by the Board- in June 1943, pursuant to a consent election agreement to which the Employer, the IAM, and the Board were parties, the IAM became the designated exclusive bargaining representative of the Company's employees in a plant-wide unit. Thereafter and for virtually the entire period since July 1943, the Employer and the IAM'have been under contractual relationship for the Company's employees in the established unit. The most recent agreement between the parties, was entered into early in 1945; it provides for an initial period of 1 year ending January 15, 1946, and for its automatic renewal from year to year thereafter in the absence of 30 days' written notice before its anniversary date. This agreement, pursuant to its terms, was automatically renewed from January 15, 1946 to January 15, 1947. Thereafter, by letter dated March 23, 1946, more than 2 months after the first anniversary date of this contract, the Petitioner advised the Employer that it represented a majority of, its employees, and requested a conference to initiate collective bargaining negotiations.' The Employer by letter dated March 26, 1946, declined to participate in a conference because of its existing contract with the IAM. The Petitioner then filed its petition on March 28, 1946. The Employer urges that its contract with the IAM is 'a bar to this proceeding. However, the Petitioner contends, in effect, that the agreement is not a bar because (1) it has run for approximately a year and a half, and (2) there have been changes in the contract unit due to conversion to peace-time operations which require a present determination of representatives. In our opinion the contract bars an election at this time. With re- spect to the Petitioner's position that because the contract, as automat- ically renewed, has been in effect for over a year it cannot operate to bar a present determination of representatives, it is clear, under well established principles of the Board, that a contract, during its au- tomatically renewed period, is as effective a bar to an election as it would be during its original term.2 Accordingly, inasmuch as the original contract was for a period of reasonable duration and was automatically renewed for a similar period, without a timely claim ' Although the letter.did not so specify, the Petitioner stated at the hearing that it in- tended to claim reprEsentation only of employees in the upholstery and assembly depart- ment. z See Matter of Mill.B, Inc., 40 N. L. R. B. 346. 236 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD and petition in support thereof having been filed by the Petitioner, we find this contention untenable. Nor is it significant in this connection, as the Petitioner impliedly argues , that the IAM has relinquished jurisdiction over the employees whom the Petitioner seeks to represent. It is sufficient in these circumstances that the contract as renewed is effective as a bar, and that the other contracting party so urges. We are also unable to agree with the Petitioner 's further contention that, apart from other considerations , conversion changes ifi the contract unit require a new determination of represenatives . In this connection the record reveals the following : The Company was formed in April 1942, at which time, it bought all its equipment, tools, and dies from a. concern then engaged in the manufacture of beauty shop furniture. Unable to obtain materials to carry on this business, the Employer started manufacturing gun mounts for the government shortly after it was formed and continued to do so until January 1944. During this period none of its employees was engaged in upholstery work. In January 1944 the employer set up aafurniture department, and commenced manufacturing metal upholstered furniture for the War Shipping Administration. This work continued until March 1945, at which time the Employer started manufacturing metal uphol- stered ,furniture for hospitals and offices . Soon thereafter , the Em- ployer settled into its normal peace -time manufacture of metal beauty shop upholstered furniture. Thus, since January 1944, the Employer has been manufacturing metal upholstered furniture requiring the services of upholsterers and assemblers. Although the size of the Em- ployer's total staff has varied considerably since early 1944, and its complement of upholsterers and assemblers has fluctuated between 8 and 30 approximately, during the same period, these variances were apparently due to the amount of material available. Moreover, it is clear that ,ever since January 1944 the Employer's manufacturing processes, including those in use in the upholstery and assembly departments, have remained basically unchanged; that there have been no material variances in the skills required of any of its em- ployees ; and that there has been no material alteration in the scope or character of the plant-wide unit. In sum, the only conversion changes have consisted of some fluctuation in the number of employees in the classifications here involved, and such fluctuations were in progress long before the effective date of the current contract. Obviously, a mere fluctuation in the Employer's working force, presumably still in progress, which does not involve material changes in the appropri- aLe unit or new or materially different operations or processes, is in- sufficient reason for disturbing an existing contractual relationship. This case is clearly distinguishable from the Electric Sprayit situation.3 3 Matter of Electric Sprayit Company and Hoe Bridges Corporation, 67 N. L. R. B. 780. NATIONAL MACHINE COMPANY 237 Under all the circumstances of the case and on the basis of the entire record, we find that the contract which was automatically renewed in 1946 until January 15, 1947, is a bar to a present determination of representatives, and we shall therefore dismiss the petition. 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 for investigation and certification of representatives of employees of National Machine Company, St. Louis, Missouri, filed by Upholsterers' International Union, Local No. 25, AFL, be, and it hereby is, dismissed.