Super Service Motor Freight Co., Inc.

444 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD SUPER SERVICE MOTOR FREIGHT CO., INC. and DISTRICT 67, INTER- NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, AFL, PETITIONER. COW, No. 5-RC-917. March 4,1952 Decision and Order Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before John M. Dyer, 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 Murdock and Styles]. 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 representa- tion 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: The Intervenor (Local 539, International Brotherhood of Team- sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, AFL) and the Employer entered into a contract effective September 1, 1950, with an expiration date of August 31, 1951. The contract provided that it should be automatically renewed for an additional year, unless either party gave proper notice at least 60 days before its expiration date. After due notice by the Intervenor, the parties negotiated as to wage increases and on August 1, 1951, reached agreement. On the latter date, the Employer and the Intervenor signed an informal document containing the new wage rates and further providing that "All other terms and conditions of the contract effective 9/1/50 to 8/31/51 are to remain the same." The agreement of August 1, 1951, was ratified by the Intervenor's membership on August 5, 1951, and on August 13 and 14, 1951, representatives of the Intervenor and the Employer signed a formal contract incorporating the terms agreed upon on August 1, 1951. On August 14, 1951, the Employer's terminal manager was advised by a telegraphic message that the IAM was seeking to represent the employees. The IAM's petition was filed on August 20, 1951. The Employer and the Intervenor contend that the agreement of August 1, 1951, constitutes a bar to the present proceeding. The 98 14LRB No. 75. PRIDE MANUFACTURING COMPANY 445 Petitioner urges, however, that it is not a bar because the parties did not intend the agreement as a final one, because it was drafted and signed in pencil, it was subsequently ratified by the membership, and the parties deemed it necessary later to formalize the agreement. We find no merit in the Petitioner's contentions. On August 1, 1951, before the Petitioner's request for recognition, the Employer and the Intervenor executed a written agreement sufficiently comprehensive to stabilize bargaining relations for the employees concerned. That the parties, without further bargaining on any contract provisions, deemed it desirable to incorporate the August 1 agreement into a more formal instrument, did ilot change the legal effect of the original agreement.' Nor is it material that the membership later ratified the agreement, as such ratification by the terms of the contract was not a condition precedent to its validity and there is no evidence in the record that the Intervenor's representative had no authority to make a final and binding agreement 2 Accordingly, the contract executed on August 1, 1951, is a bar to a present determination of representa- tives and we shall therefore dismiss the petition. Order IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition herein be, and it hereby is, dismissed. 1 See The Carborundum Company, 78 NLRB 91 ; Bemis Bro. Bag Co., 97 NLRB 1. The Petitioner's further contention that the contract is not a bar tinder the Board's "premature extension" doctrine has no merit, as this agreement was entered into during the auto- matic renewal period and before the Petitioner's representation claim. Northwestern Publishing Company, 71 NLRB 167. % Lewittes and Sons, 96 NLRB 775, and cases cited therein. PRIDE MANUFACTURING COMPANY and UNITED ELECTRICAL, RADIO AND MACHINE WORKERS OF AMERICA , PETITIONER . Case No. 6-RCi -954. March 4,1952 Decision and Order Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before Emil E. Narick, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudical 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 Murdock and Styles]. 98 NLRB No. 72.