The Anaconda Co.

530 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD All employees engaged in the repairing, painting, and servicing of equipment at the Employer's Kalispell, Montana, operation, excluding office employees, clerical employees, parts department employees, watchmen, guards, and all supervisors as defined in the Act .4 9 [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] AcT1NG.CHAIRMAN RODGERS took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Direction of Election. There is no dispute as to the appropriate unit. The Anaconda Company 1 and Manford L. Reeves, Petitioner and Coso Mine, Mill and Chemical Workers, Local No. 841, of the International Union of Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers. Case No. 01-RD-261. October 18,1955 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 Louis A. Gordon, 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 theAct. 2. The Petitioner, an employee of the Employer, asserts that the Union, which is currently recognized by the Employer as the bar- gaining representative of the employees designated in 'the petition, is no longer the representative as defined in Section 9 { a) of the Act, 3. Since 1951, at least, the Employer and the Union have, been in contractual relations with each other. In that year, the parties ex- ecuted a contract, effective from July 1, 1951, to June 30, 1953, pro- viding for its automatic renewal in the absence of a 60-day notice to modify. As amended by supplemental agreements and by opera- tion of the automatic renewal clause, the contract continued in effect up to and including June 30, 1955. Following negotiations instituted at an undisclosed date before June 8, 1955, the parties reached agree- ment on a new contract, to become effective July 1, which the parties initialed on June 8 and later formalized without change on June 18. The Employer and Union customarily followed such a practice ', in executing their agreements. % The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing 114 NLRB No. 91. "THE ANACONDA COMPANY 531 In "the first part of June" and before June 8, 1955, the Employer was served with documents stating that the signatory employees no longer desired to be represented by the Union. On June 10, the instant decertification petition was filed. The Union contends that its contract with the Employer, initialed on June 8, 1955, bars this proceeding. Assuming, as contended by the Union, that the initialed contract was a completed, binding agreement on June 8, we hold, nevertheless, that this contract does not bar a present determination of representa- tives since employees made a timely request to the Employer for with- drawal of recognition from the Union before the initialing of the contract and followed such request with the filing of a petition within 10 days thereafter.2 In addition, the Union moves to dismiss the petition on the ground that the Petitioner is "fronting" for a noncomplying labor organiza- tion. Evidence was adduced at the hearing that the Petitioner signed a document which challenged the bargaining rights of the incumbent Union and urged the Employer to recognize the United Mine Workers. Evidence was further adduced that this and other similar documents were presented to the Employer in the presence of a United Mine Workers representative. There is no evidence in the record, however, that the United Mine Workers gave the Petitioner, or the employee committee of which he was a member, any financial or other assistance. On the basis of the foregoing, we deny the motion to dismiss and find that the Petitioner is not acting as a "front" for a noncomplying union.' 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. The parties agree, and we find, that the following employees constitute a unit appropriate for, the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of theAct: All construction, production, and maintenance employees at the Em- ployer's Darwin and Shoshone mines and mills at or near Darwin and Tecopa, California, who are paid on a regular hourly rate basis, ex- cluding clerical and technical employees, temporary and part-time employees, watchmen, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] MEMBER MURDOCK took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Direction of Election. 2 fiaquiau, Hardu a a Company, 108 NLRB 955 v .lfa eehester Randw tag Co , 91 NLRB 1257, John Dritz d Sons, 88 NLRB 1521 387644-56--vol. 114-35