The Brewer-Titchener Corp.

512 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ducting the elections is instructed to issue a certification of representa- tives to the Steelworkers if that labor organization is selected by a majority of the employees in the pooled group, which the Board in such circumstances finds to be a single unit appropriate for the pur- poses of collective bargaining. [Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.] The Brewer-Titchener Corporation Crandal-Stone Division and International Association of Machinists, AFL, Petitioner. Case No. 3-RC-1481. April 28,1955 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 John W. Irving, hearing offi- cer. 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 organizations involved herein claim to represent cer- tain employees of the Employer. 3. A 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. The Employer and the Intervenor, Federated Refrigeration & Auto- motive Workers Association, contend their current contract constitutes a bar to this proceeding. The Employer's motion to dismiss on this ground was referred to the Board by the hearing officer. For reasons hereinafter stated, we deny the motion. On December 7, 1954, the Employer received a letter from the Peti- tioner advising that a majority of the employees at the Binghamton, New York, plant had designated it as their bargaining representatives and requesting recognition. The Employer replied on December 14, 1954, that it had a contract with a duly certified bargaining agent which contract did not expire until October 1, 1955. The Petitioner filed the petition herein on December 14,1954. A prior contract between the Intervenor and the Employer expired on October 1, 1954, and the parties entered into an agreement ex- tending its terms until negotiations were concluded and an agree- ment consummated and began negotiations for another contract. Mr. Sweetland, the Employer's divisional manager, one of the signatories to the current contract, testified that the letter from Petitioner was received by him on December 8 before he signed the contract in ques- 112 NLRB No. 68. MASSACHUSETTS LEATHER MANUFACTURERS' ASSOCIATION 513 tion at approximately 4 p. in. However, he stated that negotiations had been concluded prior to the receipt of the letter and that only the formalities of having the contract typed and the signatures affixed remained. The membership of the Intervenor ratified the contract on the night of December 7, and notice of the ratification was com- municated to Mr. Sweetland that night after such action was taken. The Petitioner had sent the letter of December 7 to the Employer by special delivery registered mail, return receipt requested, and the latter shows that it was received by one Hazel Thompson for the addressee, Mr. Sweetland, on December 7. It is evident from the above testimony that the Employer had actual knowledge of the Petitioner's claim prior to the formal execution of the current contract. Notwithstanding that negotiations had been concluded and the terms of the contract ratified by the union member- ship prior to such notice, no contract was entered into before the Petitioner's notice was given. The petition was filed herein within 10 days after such notice was given, and the Board has recently affirmed its policy that the execution of a contract in the interim can- not operate as a bar to an election.' 4. The Employer is engaged in the manufacture of forgings and stampings for the automotive and mechanical refrigeration industry. The parties herein stipulated, and we find, that the following em- ployees constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act: All production and maintenance employees of the Employer at its Binghamton, New York, plant, excluding all office clerical employees, laboratory technicians, guards, professional employees, and super- visors as defined in the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] 1 See AAssocaated Food Distributors, Inc., 109 NLRB 574. Cf. Oswego Falls Corp., 110 NLRB 621. Massachusetts Leather Manufacturers' Association and Leather Workers Organizing Committee, CIO and Its Local 21, Peti- tioner Advance Leather Co., Inc. and Leather Workers Organizing Com- mittee, CIO and Its Local 21, Petitioner Joseph Lewaiski d/b/a Comet Leather & Finishing Co. and Leather Workers Organizing Committee , CIO and Its Local 21, Petitioner Theodore Kaplan, I. L. Tarlow, Warren T. Carney and Lillian E. Carney d/b/a Danvers Coating Co . and Leather Workers Or- ganizing Committee, CIO and Its Local 21, Petitioner 112 NLRB No. 73.