Toledo Steel Products Co.

In the Matter of TOLEDO STEEL PRODUCTS COMPANY and INTERNA- TIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL #12 (C. I. 0.) Case No. R-4526 (8-R-909) OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PETITION December 29, 1945 On January 12, 1943, the Board issued its certification of represent- atives in this case, declaring that International Union, United Auto- mobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, Local #12 (C. I. 0.), herein called the Union, had polled a majority of votes cast in an election among employees of Toledo Steel Products Company, Toledo, Ohio, herein called the Company, in a specified appropriate unit, and that the Union was, accordingly, the exclusive representative of all such employees for the purposes of collective bargaining pursuant to Section 9 (a) of the Act. On August 3, 1945, the Company filed with the Board a "Peti- tion . . . for Construction of Certification Order of January 12, 1943" and a supporting brief. The Union filed an opposing motion and brief on September 5, 1945. The Company's petition recites, in sub- stance: that it recognized the Union for collective bargaining pur- poses following our certification of January 12, 1943, and entered into a contract with it after various proceedings before the National War Labor Board, herein called N. W. L. B.; that on December 22, 1944, believing in good faith that the Union no longer represented a ma- jority of its employees, it served upon the Union a 30-day notice of intention 'to terminate the contract, and has since refused the Union's request for further negotitions; that the Union thereupon instituted new proceedings before N. W. L. B. in the course of which that agency's Fifth Regional Board issued an interim directive order requiring the Company to recognize the Union as the "proper collective bargaining agency" for its employees in view of the certification issued by this Board on January 12, 1943. The Company argues that our certification is stale and inoperative; and that the N. W. L. B.'s action precludes it from challenging the 65 N. L. R. B., No. 12. 56 TOLEDO STEEL PRODUCTS COMPANY 57 Union's present right to be recognized as the statutory bargaining agent of its employees, and having that issue determined by this Board in proceedings under the Act. It requests that we conduct a hearing for the purpose of receiving evidence bearing upon the present efficacy of the January 1943 certification. Upon consideration of the entire matter we have decided to deny the Company's request, for the issues raised by its petition are now moot. We are advised by the N. W. L. B. that the pending case before it involving the Company is completed except for compliance hear- ings and that in no event will any findings or order which that Board may issue in the case be more than advisory in character.' It is thus apparent that the Company is no longer liable to be compelled by the N. W. L. B. to honor a certification of this Board which the Company regards as inoperative. Under the circumstances, we perceive no rea- son why any dispute between the parties concerning the Union's repre- sentative status cannot be resolved in the usual manner, by resort to proceedings under the Act in accordance with the established pro- cedures prescribed in our Rules and Regulations. Our denial of the Company's petition is not to be construed as' a recertification of the Union; nor will it prejudice. any rights or remedies the Union may enjoy under Sections 8 or 9 of the Act. ORDER In accordance with the foregoing opinion the National Labor Rela- tions Board hereby orders that the Petition by Toledo Steel Products Company for Construction of Certification Order of January 12, 1943, be, and it hereby is, denied. In a letter dated November 26, 1945, addressed to the Chairman of this Board, Lloyd K Garrison, Chairman of the N. W. L. B , stated : "Prior to VJ Day it was our custom after compliance hearings, if non-compliance con- tinued, to refer the case to the Economic Stabilization Director for such action as the executive branch of the government might wish to take with respect to the application of executive sanctions, such as seizure of the property or the cancellation of War Pro- duction priorities or allocations of raw material. Since VJ Day the Board's policy has been not to refer any cases to the executive branch for the application of sanctions. Instead, the Board has provided simply for the issuance of findings of fact with regard to non-compliance after which the cases are closed . That policy will continue to be followed."