The Steck Co.

12 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD went on strike on January 27, 1953, or thereafter, and who have not already been reinstated to said positions, dismissing if neces- sary any persons hired by us on or after January 27, 1953, and who were not in our employ on that date. WE WILL make whole the striking employees specified in the paragraph next above for any loss of pay they may suffer by reason of our refusal, if any, to reinstate them. WASHINGTON COCA-COLA BOTTLING WORKS, INC., Employer. Dated---------------- By------------------------------------- (Representative ) (Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. The Steck Company 1 and Local No. 118, International Brother- hood of Bookbinders, AFL-CIO, Petitioner and Local No. 775, United Papermakers and Paperworkers, AFL-CIO. Case No. 39-RC-1272. November 6, 1958 DECISION AND ORDER Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before C. L. Stephens, 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 National Labor Relations 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 Employer and Intervenor entered into a 3-year contract effec- tive from September 1, 1956, through August 31, 1959. The petition, in this case was filed on July 22, 1958, within the 60-day period pre- ceding the end of the contract's second year. The Intervenor con- tends that the petition should be dismissed because (a) its filing violated the AFL-CIO "No-Raid Pact" to which both Unions are parties; and (b) it is barred by the contract. 1 The Employer's name appears as amended at the hearing. 122 NLRB No. 2. WALL TUBE & METAL PRODUCTS CO. 13 As to (a), it is established Board policy that a Union's disregard of its commitment under the "No-Raid Pact" is not a reason for dismissal of its petition for representation? The case of United Textile Workers of America, AFL-CIO v. Textile. Workers Union of America (Personal Prodvet8 Corp.) 258 F. 2d 743 (C.A. 7), cited by the Intervenor neither holds nor implies that the Board erred in refusing to dismiss a petition which the impartial umpire under the "No-Raid Pact" had already ruled was in violation of the petitioning Union's obligation under the Pact. As to (b) .the Board has recently held that contracts of more than 2 years' duration are not a bar after the first 2 years despite the fact that a substantial part of the industry is covered by longer term contracts. However, to be timely in relations to such a contract, a petition must be filed from 150 to 60 days before the end of the first 2 years of the contract term or after the expiration of this 2-year period.3 As the petition in this case was filed during the 60-day period preceding the expiration of the first 2 years, we find that it was untimely and must be dismissed.4 [The Board dismissed the petition.] 2 North American Aviation, Inc., 115 NLRB 1090, footnote S. a Pacific Coast Association of Pulp and Paper Manufacturers, 121 NLRB NO. We find no merit in the contention raised by the Intervenor in its supplemental brief that a petition filed during the last year of a 8-year contract is also untimely because the third year is somehow comparable to a 1- year renewal period following upon a 2-year contract term. Nothing in the DeLuwe Metal Furniture Company case, 121 NLRB 996, supports the Intervenor's argument. Wall Tube & 'Metal Products Co. and ' Sheet Metal Workers International Association, AFI-CIO. Case No.. O--O'A-2942. November 7, 1958 DECISION AND ORDER On'April 4;1958, Trial Examiner Alba B. Martin issued his Inter-' mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices; and recommending that it cease ' and desist `therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set faith in the copy of-the Inter- mediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions, to the :Intermediate Report and a supporting brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-mem- ber panel [Chairman Leedom'' and Members Bean and Jenkins]. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made'at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed: The 122 NLRB No. 3.