Scientific Research Co.

SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH COMPANY 393 We find that all operating and maintenance employees of the Em- ployer at its natural gas operation in the States of Tennessee, Missis- sippi, and Alabama, including gas measuring employees, but exclud- ing office clerical employees, the Corinth district foreman, the Sheffield equipment foreman, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act, con- stitute a unit appropriate for collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] DEAN K. CHILD AND GENEVA L. CHILD D/B/A SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH COMPANY,' PETITIONER and DISTRICT LODGE No. 24, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, AFL. Case No. 36-RM-115. October 18, 1954 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 E. G. Strumpf, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. 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 organization involved claims to represent certain em- ployees of the Employer. 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the reprsenta- tion of employees ,of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. On January 16, 1953, the Employer-Petitioner and the Union exe- cuted a 1-year collective-bargaining agreement, effective February 5, 1953, covering the Employer's hourly paid production and main- tenance employees and providing for automatic renewal in the absence of notice to terminate or modify given by either party to the other 60 days prior to the expiration of the contract. Pursuant to the fore- going provision, on December 3, 1953, the Union sent timely notice to the Employer of its desire to modify the agreement and, in the notice, included its proposed amendments and modifications. Thereafter, and between the date of the notice and February 1, 1954, the parties had two meetings at which they failed to reach agreement on the Union's proposals. On February 1, 1954, the Em- ployer, by letter, submitted to the Union a set of counterproposals in which it offered to amend the recognition article of the then expiring 1 The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing. 110 NLRB No. 57. '394 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD agreement and to leave unchanged all of the remaining articles but one, for which a substitute was proposed. This letter also unequivo- cally stated that the employee classifications, included as an appendix ,of the expired agreement, would have to be reexamined in the light of their applicability to present employees. On February 11, 1954, a conference concerning these counterpro- posals was held before a Federal mediator. The testimony of the parties as to what took place at this conference is in sharp dispute. The Union's witness testified that agreement was reached by the parties on the counterproposals and that the Employer, consenting to drop its demands with regard to the reclassification of present employees, discussed only the evaluation of jobs to arise from new manufacturing processes in the future, an item to which the Union consented and for which the Union submitted job descriptions to the Employer for its approval. In sharp contrast to this testimony, the Employer's witness, who attended the conference, testified that, inas- much as he considered that some employees were misclassified, he in- •sisted upon reclassification of these employees as a condition precedent to the adoption of the other counterproposals. He further'testified that the Union did not agree to the requested reclassification or to the continuance of the wage scale of the expired agreement as offered in the counterproposals. He also testified that the Union failed to indi- cate acceptance of any of the counterproposals and that when the con- ference was ended he was under the impression that bargaining had been suspended to be renewed only upon request of either party. Shortly thereafter, he informed the Federal mediator that no agree- ment had been reached and that he doubted the Union's majority status. The mediator advised the witness that he would convey this information to the Union. Neither party took any further action with respect to concluding an agreement for approximately a 4-month period after the conference of February 11. Finally, on June 17, 1954, the Union sent to the Em- ployer a letter, the import of which was that the Union accepted the terms of the Employer's counterproposals of February 1, 1954, and agreed to reexamine wage rates and work classifications applicable to all new work processes during the life of the agreement. On June 21, 1954, the Employer answered this letter stating that it was the Em- ployer's understanding that no agreement had been reached. Never- theless, the Union drafted an agreement in accord with the terms of the counterproposals but before the same could be submitted to the Employer, the petition herein was filed on June 28, 1954. The Union contends that, although no formal written agreement has been executed by the parties, nevertheless, an agreement consisting of the Employer's counterproposals of February 1, 1954, and the BARTLETT-COLLINS COMPANY 395 -Union's written acceptance of June 17, 1954, exists which constitutes a bar to this proceeding. We find no merit in this contention. We are not persuaded by the evidence before us, that the Union's belated acceptance of the Employer's counterproposals, which were the subject of inconclusive negotiations conducted 4 months earlier, re- sulted in an agreement between the parties. In our opinion, it would be unrealistic to assume, under the facts and circumstances of this ,case, that the Employer's counterproposals remained in existence as a continuing offer which the Union was privileged to accept 4 months later and thereby to convert into a contractual obligation binding on the Employer. As the Employer.timely raised the question of the Union's majority status, we find that a question of representation exists warranting an election at this time. 4. The following employees of the Employer constitute a unit ap- propriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the mean- ing of Section 9 (b) of the Act.' All production and maintenance employees at the Employer's Port- land, Oregon, mechanical instrument manufacturing plant, excluding office clerical employees, guards, professional employees, and super- visors as defined in the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] s The unit description appears substantially as stipulated by the parties at the hearing. BARTLETT-COLLINS COMPANY and AMERICAN FLINT GLASS WORKERS' UNION OF NORTH AMERICA, AFL. Case . No. 16-CA-401. October 19,1954 Decision and Order On September 8, 1953, Trial Examiner George A. Downing, issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action as set forth in the copy of the Inter- mediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent Com- pany requested oral argument and filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report. The Respondent's request for oral argument is hereby de- nied as the record adequately presents the issues and the positions of the parties. The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Interme- 110 NLRB No. 58.