National Gypsum Co.

676 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD We find, therefore, that the unit sought by,the Petitioner is inappro- priate, and in view of the fact that the Petitioner unequivocally stated at the hearing that it opposes the enlargement or reduction of the_ requested unit and does not seek any alternative unit, we shall dismiss the petition. Order IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition herein be, and it hereby is, dismissed. NATIONAL GYPSUM COMPANY and UNITED GAS, COKE AND CHEMICAL WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER. Case No. 5-RC-874. October 9, 1951 Decision and Direction of Election Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Benjamin E. Cook, 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 Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three- member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members 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 Act. 2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain em- ployees of the Employer. 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa- tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. The Employer and United Construction Workers, UMW, herein called the Intervenor, have engaged in collective bargaining since 1946. On June 16, 1950, they executed a collective bargaining contract with the termination date of August 1, 1951. On March 19, 1951, they executed an agreement which provided for certain wage adjustments and the extension of the 1950 agreement to March 1, 1952. The Peti- tioner, which made its first request for recognition on May 9, 1951, contends that the supplemental agreement prematurely extended the basic contract and that therefore, under well-established Board "pre- mature extension" principles,' the contract as extended cannot operate 1 Wichita Union Stockyards Company, 40 NLRB 369; Northwestern Pubhcshing Com- pany (WDAN), 71 NLRB 167; Republic ;Steel Corporation, 84 NLRB 48; American Steel Foundrses, 85 NLRB 19. 96 NLRB No 87. NATIONAL GYPSUM COMPANY 677- as a bar to this proceeding. The Employer, supported by the Inter- venor, offers several relatively novel arguments in support of its con- tention that in this case the Board should deviate from its premature extension doctrine. k The premature extension doctrine is necessary to preserve to em- ployees the important right to challenge the representative status of an incumbent union at predictable and reasonable intervals. Were the doctrine modified, as the Employer proposes, this right would largely disappear. On the one hand, the Employer would have us curtail this right by applying.the premature extension rule only when the parties to the contract have knowledge of rival union activity at. the time the contract is extended. The defect inherent in this pro- posal is that it would force a rival union interested in challenging the incumbent union's representative status to begin an active organiza- tional campaign early in the contract term, rather than waiting, as it now may, until near the end of that contract term. Experience has proved that prolonged rival union organization is not conducive to• harmonious -employer-employee relationships. Alternatively, the Employer contends that the premature extension doctrine should not be applied at the present time because abnormal economic conditions since the outbreak of the Korean hostilities make. it advisable to preserve existing contractual relationships. Correla- tively, it argues that the application of the premature extension doc- trine here would deprive it of a year's stabilized employer-employee relationship, the sole consideration it derived from the increase in em- ployee wages granted in the 1951 negotiations with the Intervenor; such a deprivation would not only be inequitable, but would discourage, contract adjustment made necessary by conditions of inflation. Flexibility within a collective bargaining framework is necessary to accommodate employment conditions to economic changes. This has long been recognized by the Board. Consequently, in view of the changing economic conditions existent at the termination of World War II, the Board ruled that extensive changes made in the terms of a contract during the contract period would not remove the contract as a bar to a petition so long as the changes were made pursuant to a, valid reopening clause in the contract.2 Later the Board ruled that such changes would not remove a contract as a bar even though such changes were not made pursuant to a reopening clause., But, at the same time, the Board has also held that where changes made during the contract term include a premature extension of the duration of the, contract, the extended agreement constitutes a bar only so long as the original contract would have been in effect.' Thus, these decisions,, s S & W Fine Foods, Inc, 74 NLRB 1316 a TVestern Electric Company, 94 NLRB 54. -4 Repubixc Steel Corporation, supra. 974176-52-vol 96-44 678 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD while permitting changes made necessary by fluctuating economic conditions, have carefully preserved the right of employees to change their bargaining representative at predictable intervals. We think that right is as worthy of preservation now as it was at the time those decisions were rendered. We therefore find no merit in the contention of the Employer that the substantial benefits accruing to employees under their supplemental agreement which were obtained for them by bargaining with respect to a longer contract period outweigh in im- portance the immediate exercise of their right to select a new bargain- ing representative.' Accordingly, as the petition herein was timely filed with respect to the termination date of the June 16, 1950, contract, we find that that contract, as extended, does not bar a present determination of repre. sentatives." 4. The parties agree and we find that all production and mainte- nance employees, including janitors, truck drivers, and welders, at the Employer's plant in Kimballton, Virginia, excluding laboratory, office and clerical employees, watchmen, and supervisors as defined in the Oct, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bar- gaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this volume.] 5 Consolidated Western Steel, Inc., 93 NLRB 1199. 9 A. Siegel & Sons, Inc., 94 NLRB 471. MAIDEN FORM BRASSIERE Co., INC. and LOCAL 20, OFFICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION, AFL, PETITIONER . Case No. O-RC-3669. October 9, 1951 Decision and Direction of Election Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before George Turitz, 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 Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three- member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members 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 Act. 96 NLRB No. 105.