Sangamo Electric Co.

SANOAMO ELECTRIC COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, AFL, PETITIONER. Case No. 13-RC-3968. Septem- ber-01,195 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 Jewel G. Maher, hear- ing 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 Petitioner; Selco Employees Association, an intervenor, herein called Selco; and International Union of Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America, CIO, an intervenor, herein called the IUE; are labor organizations claiming to represent certain employ- ees of the Employer. ' 3., ' Selco contends that it has an existing contract with the' Em- ployer which bars this proceeding. The Employer, the Petitioner, and the IUE contend that the contract is no bar. The contract in question was executed on August 20, 1951, and provided in pertinent part that it shall continue in effect until August 21, 1954, and thereafter from year to year; pro- vided, however, either party hereto may terminate this agreement or request amendment on August 21, 1954, or any anniversary of said date by giving notice in writing sixty (60) or more calendar 'days prior to any such termination or amendment date. [Em- phasis supplied.] The contract also made provision for reopening on each anniversary of its execution date with respect to all terms of the contract, except wages. Pursuant to a notice under the reopening clause, the parties commenced negotiations for contract modification in or about August 1953, and generally continued such negotiations until June 1954, without reaching agreement. On June 1, 1954, the parties executed a supplemental agreement, which "declared" in substance that their negotiations, pursuant to the August 1953 reopening, were completed, and-that they agreed to begin negotiations as soon as possible respect- ing all provisions of the contract, including wages, with the contract as modified to be effective from August 21, 1954; and further provided that if agreement on a modified contract was not reached by August 110 NLRB No. 1. JJ52O I -3Z -% ul 110--2 1 2 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 20, 1954, either party would have the right to declare a deadlock in the negotiations and take such action as it may deem advisable, upon 2 weeks' notice to the other party, but that the unchanged provisions of the existing contract would remain in effect until the execution of a new contract. Following the June 1, 1954, supplemental agreement, some negotiations were commenced but were apparently abandoned, without any agreement upon a modified contract. On June 2, 1954, the Employer formally notified Selco in accordance with the terms of the August 1951 contract, noted above, of its desire to amend the contract. The petition herein was filed on June 21, 1954. On these facts, we conclude that the petition is not barred by reason of either the August 1951 contract or the June 1, 1954, supplemental agreement. Among other things, we hold that the Employer's notice to Selco on June 2, 1954, of its desire to amend the contract, which action we find was in no way precluded by the June 1, 1954, supple- mental agreement, operated as an effective notice to forestall the con- tract's automatic renewal.' The June 1, 1954, supplemental agree- ment, in our opinion, at best had the effect of rendering the contract terminable at will after August 20, 1954. No new contract was signed. Consequently, no effective contract existed to bar the petition. Accordingly, we find that a question affecting commerce exists con- cerning the representation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 4. In accordance with the stipulation of the parties, we find the following employees of the Employer at its Springfield, Illinois, plant, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act : All production employees, including factory clerical employees, jani- tors, floor inspectors, and employees engaged in warehouse activities, but excluding office clerical employees, timekeepers, engineering and technical employees, armed guards, watchmen, cafeteria employees, employees in department No. 42 (toolroom employees), boiler room employees, maintenance department employees (electricians, mill- wrights, carpenters, painters, and pipefitters), professional employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act. 5. A question was raised at the hearing concerning the voting eli- gibility of 351 laid-off employees. These employees were laid off generally during the months of May and June 1954, and had not been recalled as of July 15, 1954, the date of the hearing. In accordance with the Selco contract, laid-off employees are retained by the Em- ployer on a recall list, in order of seniority, for a period of 1 year from date of layoff. As of the hearing date, there were 1,613 unit employees on the Employer's payroll, excluding the laid-off employees. 1 See American Lawn Hower Co , 108 NLRB 1589, involving a contract with similar co-terminous modification and termination clauses AMERICAN CAN COMPANY 3 It was testified on behalf of the Employer that laid-off employees would be recalled to replace the normal turnover of employees, which consists, on average, of about 1 percent per month of the employee payroll. The testimony further indicates that the Employer will ad- ditionally recall, because of an anticipated increase in production, 20 employees in September; 20 in October; 30 in November; and 25 in December; or a total of 95 employees by January 1, 1955. Adding to this figure the number of employees to be recalled by January 1, 1955, in replacement of normal turnover, i. e., approximately 92 employees, we reach the total of about 187 employees who will, according to record testimony, specifically be recalled by January 1, 1955. After the close of the hearing on August 4, 1954, the Employer notified the Board by letter (with copies to the parties), that because of "in- creased sales," it intends to recall in the month of September about 100 more of the laid-off employees, in addition to the approximately 187 indicated above. However, the Board was advised by the IUE that it objected to the admission of the Employer's posthearing state- nient into the record. It is well established that laid-off employees are eligible to vote in Board elections if they have a reasonable expectation of reemployment in the near future, to be determined as of the date of the election.2 In our opinion, the record in this case indicates with sufficient spec- ificity that the laid-off employees herein involved have a reasonable expectancy of recall in the near future. Accordingly, we find that, as a group, they are eligible to vote in the election. However, where it reasonably appears to any party at the election that an individual laid-off employee is ineligible, the ballot of such employee may be challenged. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] MEMBERS MURDOCK and RODGERS took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Direction of Election. 2 See, e. g., F. B . Rogers Silver Company, 95 NLRB 1430, 1432; Fresh'nd-Aire Company, Division of Cory Corporation, 107 NLRB No. 183 (not reported in printed volumes of Board Decisions and Orders). AMERICAN CAN COMPANY and LOCAL 74, AMALGAMATED LITHOGRAPHERS OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER and LOCAL UNION No. 2120, UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO. Case No. 10-RC-19557. 8eptem,- ber 191,1951 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 Gilbert Cohen, hearing of- 110 NLRB No. 3.