The Mengel Co.

THE MENGEL COMPANY,' 321 The -Mengel Company, 'Corrugated Box ' Division and Interna- tional '- Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union of North America, AFL, Petitioner. Case No.' 9-RC-2476. October 10, 1955 DECISION AND ORDER' 'Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Richard C. Curry, 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 organizations involved claim to represent employees of :the Employer. 3. No 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, for the following reasons: ' The Petitioner, International Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union of North America, AFL, seeks to represent all the production and maintenance employees at the Employer's Louisville, Kentucky, plant. The Employer and the Intervenor, Independent Corrugated Boxmakers' Union, Local No. 1, contend that their current collective- bargaining contract is a bar to a determination of representatives at this time. The Petitioner contends that the existing contract is not a bar to this proceeding because -(1) it has been prematurely extended, and (2) the contract was negotiated and signed by officers of the In- tervenor who are supervisors within the meaning of the Act, and it is therefore invalid. The record shows that on February 2, 1954,'the Employer and the Intervenor renewed their then existing contract for the period, from February 2, 1954, to February 2,4956. The petition was filed on April 6, 1955, approximately 10 months prior to the scheduled ter- mination date of the contract, land was therefore untimely filed with respect to the contract. Thereafter, on' April 14, 1955, the Employer .and the Intervenor executed an agreement extending the termination date of their February 2, 1954, contract to February 2, 1957. The Petitioner contends that as this latter agreement constitutes a pre- mature extension of the 1954 contract, neither contract may stand as a -,bar to this petition. We do not agree with this contention. Pre- mature extension of a contract does not remove the extended contract as a bar to petitions untimely filed during its original term.' As the 1 Reliance Electric & Engineering- Co , 98 NLRB 488, 489 , and cases cited therein. 114 NLRB No. 64. 322 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD .petition herein was-untimely filed .with respect to the original term-of .the February 2, 1954, contract it is barred by that contract.' As indicated, the Petitioner further contends that the Intervenor's contract with the Employer is invalid because 4 of the 5 officers of the Intervenor who negotiated and signed the contract are allegedly supervisors. In support of this contention, the Petitioner cites cases 'in which the Board has refused to direct a representation election be- cause it found that the union seeking the certification as representa- tive was organized or controlled by supervisors.' These cases are in- apposite in the present situation, however, for the Intervenor is not seeking a certification; it merely asserts that its current contract bars a determination of representatives at this time. The purpose of the Petitioner's allegations that the officers of the Intervenor are super- visors is to have the Intervenor's contract removed as a bar on the ground that supervisors, as agents of the Employer, have dominated or interfered with the formation or administration of the Intervenor. Such allegations relate to unfair labor practices prohibited by Sec- tion 8 (a) (2) of the Act, and if the Petitioner wishes to utilize them in attacking the Intervenor's otherwise valid contract as a bar, its al- legations must, be litigated in an unfair labor practice proceeding. It its established Board policy not to permit the litigation of alleged un- fair labor practices in a representation proceeding.4 Accordingly, we will not consider the evidence adduced as to the supervisory status of the officers of the Intervenor for the purpose of invalidating the Intervenor's contract as a bar. On the basis of the foregoing, and the entire record in this case, we find that the February 2, 1954, contract between the Intervenor and the Employer is a bar to the petition filed herein. We shall, therefore, dismiss the petition.5 [The Board dismissed the petition.] 2 We also find no merit in the Petitioner's contention that the February 2, 1954, contract must be deemed invalid because the Intervenor did not adduce documentary evidence that the contract was ratified by its'membership, as required by the Intervenor's constitution. At a meeting on December 15. 1953, the Intervenor's membership voted to the negotiating .committee authority to execute a contract embodying the terms which were incorporated in the February 2, 1954 , contract. Officers of the Intervenor testified that the contract was ratified by the membership after its execution , and the acceptance by the employees of the pay raise provided by the contract, without any disavowal-of the contract thereafter corroborates their testimony. We find that the contract was validly executed and may constitute a bar. See Fischer Steel Corporation, 94 NLRB 716, 717. - 3 See, for example , Columbia Pictures Corp., 94 NJRB 466, New York City Omnibus Corporation , 104 NLRB 579. 4 National Foundry Company of New York, Inc, 109 NLRB 357. 8 The Employer's request for oral argument is denied , as the record and briefs adequately ,present the positions of the parties. In view of our decision herein, we find it un- necessary to rule on the contentions of the Employer and the Intervenor regarding the compliance status of the Petitioner.