Standard Oil Co.

598 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and the entire record in this case, the Board makes the following determination of dispute, pursuant to Section 10 (k) of the Act : 1. Radio & Television Broadcast Engineers Union, Local 1212, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, and its agents are not and have not been entitled, by means proscribed by Sec- tion 8 (b) (4) (D) of the Act, to force or require Columbia Broadcast- ing System, Inc., to assign the work of setting up and operating light- ing equipment on remote telecasts to its members rather than to other CBS employees, who are members of Theatrical Protective Union No. 1, International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees and Moving Picture Machine Operators of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO. 2. Within ten (10) days from the date of this Decision and Deter- mination of Dispute, Local 1212 shall notify the Regional Director for the Second Region, in writing, whether or not it will refrain from forcing or requiring CBS, by means proscribed by Section 8 (b) (4) (D) of the Act, to assign the disputed work to its members rather than to other employees of CBS, who are members of Theatrical Protective Union No.1. Standard Oil Company and Oil Chemical and Atomic Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Cases Nos. 30-RC- 1326 and 30-RC-1327. November 25,1957 DECISION AND OILDER Upon petitions duly filed under Section,9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Allison E. Nutt, hearing of- ficer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Upon the entire record in these cases, the Board finds : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain em- ployees 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 Section2 (6) and (7) of the Act. i Central States Petroleum Union National, Local 124, herein called the Local, inter- vened on the basis of a contract interest. The parent union is referred to as National. - 119 NLRB No. 72. STANDARD OIL 'COMPANY 599 The Employer and the Local contend that their current • contracts are a bar to the petitions herein. The Petitioner opposes this contention. The Employer operates an oil refinery at Casper, Wyoming, at which it manufactures gasoline and oil products from crude oil. The Petitioner seeks to represent at this plant separate units of (1) pro- duction and maintenance employees (Case No. 30-RC-1326), and (2) office clerical employees (Case No. 30-RC-1327). In 1949 the Local was certified as bargaining representative of employees in the units sought by the Petitioner. It has represented these employees since that time and has executed separate contracts for each unit. The latest contracts between the parties, which are here asserted as a bar, provide, in part, as follows : The Union agrees to promptly submit and recommend ratification and certification to its membership and to the national officers of the Central States Petroleum Union. The Union further agrees to notify the Company prior to June 7, 1957, of such ratification and certification. If such notice is not received, the agreement will become null and void. The record discloses that contract negotiations were completed and the original drafts of the contracts were signed by the Employer and the Local on May 23,1957. On May 24,1957, the Employer hired an employee in accord with the terms of the new contracts, and on May 31, 1957, assigned certain employees to the task of preparing the necessary adjustment of wage rates required by the new contracts. On May 31, 1957, the Employer also forwarded clean copies of the contracts to National for signature. On June 1, 1957, the membership of the Local ratified both agreements; the Employer received notice of such ratification at about 8 a. in. on June 3, 1957. On the same day, at approximately 10: 30 a. in. the Petitioner requested recognition of the Employer as representative of the production and maintenance employees; also on the same day National signed the contracts and so notified the Local, which notified the Employer. National forwarded a written notice to the Employer to that effect on June 3, 1957. The Employer received the written notice on June 4, 1957, the day on which the Petitioner filed its petition in Case No. 30-RC-1326 for a production and maintenance unit. On June 5, 1957, the Petitioner demanded recognition in the office clerical unit and filed the petition in Case No. 30-RC-1327. On June 6, 1957, copies of the agreements which had been approved by National were signed by the Employer :and the Local. The Petitioner contends that both petitions are timely because the contracts were not formally executed until after the petitions were 600 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL 'LABOR RELATIONS BOARD filed with the Board; it further contends that in any event the petition in Case No. 30-RC-1326 is timely because a claim was made as to the production and maintenance unit before the Employer received the notice of certification by National. The Employer and the Local contend, however, that as the contracts were initially executed on May 23, 1957, prior to the filing of the petitions; as certain provisions of the contracts had been placed in effect; and as the further acts required by the agreements were ministerial, the petitions were barred by the contracts in accord with the principles set forth in such de- cisions as the American Smelting, Phelps Dodge, Natona Mills, and Oswego Falls cases 2 We agree with the Employer and the Local that the petitions are barred by the contracts. It is clear that before the Petitioner had made any claim to repre- sent any of the Employer's employees, the terms of the contracts had been agreed upon; the original drafts of the contracts had been signed; action had been taken to place certain provisions of the contracts in effect; the membership of the Local had ratified both contracts; and the Employer had been notified of such ratification. Accordingly, when the Petitioner made its initial claim the bargaining relationship between the parties had been substantially stabilized and beyond the purely ministerial act of signing the clean copies of the agreements 3 nothing further remained to be done except certification by National and notification thereof to the Employer. Unlike a requirement of employee ratification,' a requirement for certification by an organiza- tion which is not a named party to the contract 5 is not a substantial requirement necessary to achieve stability in the bargaining relation- ship of the named parties. Accordingly, in view of all the circum- stances of this case, we find that stability in labor relations would not be served by a redetermination of representatives at this time, and we shall therefore dismiss the petitions.6 [The Board dismissed the petitions.] MEMBERS MURDOCK and JENKINS took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Order. a American Smelting and Refining Company, etc., 118 NLRB 915; Phelps Dodge Refining Corp., 112 NLRB 1209. Natona Mills, Inc., 112 NLRB 236; Oswego Falls Corp., 110 NLRB 621. a As the original drafts of the agreements were executed by the parties on May 23, before the Petitioner's original claim, cases holding that a contract is not a bar until it is exe- cuted, such as Washington Metal Trades, Inc., etc., 110 NLRB 327, and Mt. Clemens Metal Products Company, 110 NLRB 931 , relied on by the Petitioner , are inapposite. Nor are these interim agreements such as the one involved in Bridgeport Brass Company, 110 NLRB 997, also relied on by the Petitioner. 4 See, e. g., Campbell Soup Company, 109 NLRB 518, relied on by the Petitioner. 5 Compare H. W. Rickel and Company, etc., 105 NLRB 679, cited by the Petitioner. e See cases cited in footnote 2, supra.