Bemis Bro. Bag Co.

BEMIS BRO. BAG Co. and TEXTILE WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER. Case No. 35-RC--514. November 15, 1951 Decision and Order Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Robert Volger, hear- ing 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 employees of the Employer. 3. No question affecting commerce- exists concerning the represen- tation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, for the following reasons: On April 19, 1949, a contract was entered into by the Intervenor and the Employer effective to March 1, 1951, and automatically renewable from year to year thereafter unless 60 days' prior notice was given by either party. By letter of December 27, 1950, the Inter- venor notified the Employer of its desire to reopen the contract. Nego- tiations commenced on January 19, 1951, and continued through approximately six meetings thereafter, terminating on March 15, 1951. A copy of the 1949 contract was used as a basis for discussion during these negotiations. Agreed changes in the terms of this old contract were made by deletions and additions in ink on the copy of the contract. On March 14, the copy of the 1949 contract with inked-in changes was initialed by Mr. H. F. Wilson, the personnel and cost manager of the Employer, and Mr. C. D. Carter, the president of the Inter- venor,2 at each place where handwritten changes in the 1949 contract I Independent Employees Association , hereinafter referred to as Intervenor, was allowed to intervene on the basis of an existing collective bargaining agreement with the Employer. The request for oral argument by the Employer is hereby denied as the record and the briefs, in our opinion, adequately present the issues and the positions of the parties. 2 Wilson and Carter were present at each meeting between the Employer and the Inter- venor ; and they conducted most of the negotiations. 97 NLRB No. 1. 1 2 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD appeared. At the same time the initials of Wilson and Carter were subscribed to an insert on the last page of the contract, as follows : Changes as given are agreed on today. To call C.D.A. [plant manager] and notify him new contract agreeable to I.E.A. [Inter-' venor] and company.' Find when he wants to make new contract operational and in full force. Do not suggest it be in full opera- tion until 3/19 [initialed] O. K.. H. W. 3/14/51 [initialed] O. K. C. D. C. 3/14/51 Wilson and Carter met on the morning of March 15, 1951, and wrote in a provision on the initialed document that the contract would -become effective March 19, 1951, and initialed this provision. On the same day, Wilson sent a letter to Carter which confirmed March 19, 1951, as the effective date, and also confirmed acceptance of the labor agreement. Between March 14 and 16, Wilson notified the superintendent, an assistant superintendent, and the employment manager of the Em- ployer that a new contract had been completed and agreed upon, and that it would become effective on March 19, 1951. He also instructed the supervisor of the payroll department to pay the second shift em- ployees the wage increase, and, commencing March 19, these employees were compensated at the higher rate. Petitioner made its claim of representation in a letter of March 27, 1951, to the Employer. - Two days later, all terms of the document, initialed on March 14 and 15, were transcribed verbatim, and in this final form the agreement was signed on March 29 by representatives of the Employer and the Intervenor,' including Wilson and Carter. The petition in this proceeding was docketed April 6, 1951. The Employer and the Intervenor contend that a valid effective contract was entered into by March 15, and that the contract is a bar to the petition. The Petitioner disagrees, averring that the con- tract cannot be a bar as it was not signed until March 29, 1951. We recognize that signatures may be made to a contract in abbrevi- ated form, as by the use of initials' Therefore, the March 15 contract is a complete, signed agreement unless the parties initialing it were not authorized to execute the contract, and ratification of their action was necessary to make the contract effective and binding. The evi- dence in the record indicates that Wilson and Carter had full authority to make a binding contract. - If other proof of their authority is needed, it is evidenced by the notification by Wilson to several of his subordinates between March 14 and 16 of the existence of a new 3 Five representatives of the Employer and either seven or eight representatives of the Intervenor signed the agreement on March 29. Several other representatives of the Intervenor sighed at a later date 4 2 Williston, Contracts (rev. ed. 1936) Sec 585; f7 C J. S. Contracts Sec. 62 (b). AMERICAN BROADCASTING COMPANY, INC. 3 contract, and by the fact that its terms were then put into effect on March 19, 1951; its effective date. The ceremony on March 29, 1951, was merely in the nature of a reexecution of the document in a more legible and convenient form . In our opinion, therefore, on March 15, there existed an explicit , comprehensive , written and signed record of the entire understanding between the parties which stabilized bargaining relations for the employees concerned . Accordingly, the contract is a bar to the petition in this proceeding.' Order r. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition filed herein be, and it hereby is, dismissed without prejudice. " See The Carborundum Company, 78 NLRB 91: Armour & Company, 66 NLRB 209. Cf. Roddis Plywood & Door Company, Inc., 84 NLRB 309 AMERICAN BROADCASTING COMPANY, INC. and INTERNATIONAL ALLIANCE OF THEATRICAL STAGE EMPLOYEES AND MOVING PICTURE MACHINE OPERATORS OF THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA, AFL, PETITIONER. Case No. 2-RC-3555. November 15, 1951 Decision and Direction of Election Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before I. L. Broadwin, 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 [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 National Labor Relations 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. 4. The Petitioner contends that all sound effect technicians and ap- prentices of the Employer's New York City operations, excluding sound effects technicians doing recording of transcriptions, managers, assistant managers, guards, watchmen, and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute an appropriate unit. The Intervenor (National Association of Broadcast Engineers and Technicians, CIO) contends 97 NLRB No.4.