Pullman Standard Car Manufacturing Co.

In the Matter Of PULLMAN STANDARD CAR MANUFACTURING COMPANY and UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AIIIERICA, C. I. O. Case No. R-56-14.-Decided July W, 1943 Messrs. Russell Packard and George E. Frendenthal, Jr., for the Board. , Winston, Strawn & Shawn, by Mr. George B. Christensen , of Chicago, Ill., for the Company. Messrs. John J. Brownlee and Philip M. Curran, of Pittsburgh, Pa., for the C. I. O. Mr. A. Robert Pakulaz, of Chicago , Ill., for the Independent. Mr. A. Sumner Lawrence , of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon petition- duly filed by United Steelworkers of America, C. I. 0., herein called the C. I. 0., alleging that a question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation of employees of Pullman Standard Car Manufacturing Company, Chicago, Illinois, the National Labor Relations Board provided for an appropriate hearing upon due notice before Josef L. Hektoen, Trial Examiner. Said hearing was held at Chicago, Illinois, on June 28-29, 1943. The Company, the C. I. 0., and Pullman Standard Employees Union, un- affiliated, herein called the Independent, appeared, participated, and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-ex- amine witnesses and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues. The Trial Examiner's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. The Company's motion to dismiss is granted for reasons hereinafter set forth. All parties were afforded the opportunity of filing briefs with the Board. 51 N. L. R. B., No. 111. 661 662 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY Pullman Standard Car Manufacturing Company, a Delaware cor- poration, has its principal office and place of business at Chicago, Illinois, and operates numerous plants throughout the United States. The only plant involved in this proceeding is the Chicago plant, known as the carshops, at which the Company is principally engaged in the manufacture of parts for ships under contract with the United States Navy. The Company uses annually at its Chicago plant raw materials of a value exceeding $1,000,000, of which more than 50 percent is re- ceived from points outside the State of Illinois. The Company manu- factures annually at its Chicago plant finished products of 'a value in excess of $1,000,000, all of which are eventually shipped to points out- side the State of Illinois. 'The Company admits that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED United Steelworkers of America is a labor organization, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, admitting to mem- bership employees of the Company. Pullman Standard Employees Union is an unaffiliated labor organi- zation, admitting to membership employees of the Company. III. THE ALLEGED QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION On March 15, 1943, the C. I. O. filed a petition for investigation and certification of representatives for the employees of the Company at its Chicago plant, hereinabove referred to as the carshops. - Prior thereto, on February 20, 1943, the Company and the Independent had entered into an exclusive collective bargaining agreement cover- ing the employees in question and effective until February 8, 1944, with the-further provision that the contract should continue in effect from year to year thereafter subject to termination on 30 days' notice before the anniversary date. Both the Company and the Independent contend that the contract is a bar to the present proceeding. While the contract relied upon by the Company and the Independent did not, at the time of its execution, resolve all issues then outstanding between the parties, such contract was, however, a binding agreement which settled a substantial number of questions relative to collective bargaining, without prejudice to the right of the Independent to sub- mit thereafter to the War Labor Board the issues unresolved by the agreement. Such agreement was, moreover, executed at a time when 0 PULLMAN STANDARD CAR MANUFACTURING COMPANY 663 it appears that the Company had no notice of any claim on the part of the C. I. O. to represent the employees of the Company.' Since it does not appear that the C. I. O. made any claim of repre- sentation to the Company prior to the execution of the contract with the Independent, we find that the contract constitutes a bar to a present determination of representatives.2 We shall, accordingly, dismiss the petition filed by the C. I. O. This dismissal, however, shall not prejudice the right of the C. I. O. to file a new petition at a reasonable time before the expiration of the existing contract. 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 repre- sentatives of employees of Pullman Standard Car Manufacturing Company, Chicago, Illinois, filed by United Steelworkers of America, C. 1. 0.1 be, and it hereby is, dismissed. CHAIRMAN MILLIS took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Order. 1 The C. I. 0. claims that on or about December 11, 1942, at a conference in connection with a collective bargaining agreement at another plant of the Company, the latter was notified informally by the C. 1 0. of its claim to majority representation of the employees at the carshops of the Company. It appears, however, that the general practice of the C. I. 0. with respect to other plants of the Company was to give formal written notice of its claim to majority representation At the hearing, the Company denied having ever received any notice either formal or informal of the C. I. 0 's claim to representation prior to the filing of the present petition. While there is some evidence that, subsequent to December 11, 1942, and prior to February 20, 1943, when the contract was executed, the Company had notice of C. I. 0 membership among the carshop employees, there is no evidence that during such period any claim was made by the C. I. o, to representation. We find, accordingly, the the Company was without knowledge of any rival claim to representation upon the date of the execution of the contract herein involved. See Matter of Detroit Michigan Stove Company, 51 N. L. R. B. 34T. S