East Tennessee Packing Co.

204 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The Objections The Regional Director found that the Employer caused all of the employees in the voting unit to stop work and assemble in the grinding room at 4 p.m., on July 1, 1958, a half hour before the election. On this occasion, the Employer addressed the employees and strongly urged them to vote against the Union. We find, in agreement with the Regional Director, that the speech delivered under the above conditions was violative of the Board's 24-hour election rule, as expressed in the Peerless Plywood case,4 and that the fact that the Employer was not aware of this rule is immaterial.5 In these cir- cumstances, we shall therefore set the first election aside and direct that a new election be conducted. , The Challenges As we are setting aside the election and directing a new election, we find it unnecessary to pass upon any of the challenged ballots. However, those persons considered in the pending unfair labor prac- tice proceedings against the Employer may vote in the second election subject to challenge. [The Board set aside the election held on July 1, 1958.] [Text of Direction of Second Election omitted from publication.] 4 Peerless Plywood Company, 107 NLRB 427. 5 Banner Die Fixture Co., 107 NLRB 1332. East Tennessee Packing Company and United Packinghouse Workers of America, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 10-RC- 4161. November 21, 1958 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 Courtney Carswell, 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 certain employees of the Employer.' 1 Independent Union of Meat Cutters and Packinghouse Employees intervened on the basis of a contractual interest. 122 NLRB No. 25. EAST TENNESSEE PACKING COMPANY 205 3. On August 31, 1955, the Employer and the Intervenor executed a contract covering the employees now sought by the Petitioner. This contract by its terms was to expire on August 30, 1958, and to renew automatically for 3-year periods thereafter, absent 60 days' notice to modify. The Mill B date of the contract, July 2, 1958, was allowed to pass without notice from either party to modify. On June 30, 1958, the Petitioner requested recognition from the Employer, and on July 9, filed a petition with the Board. . The Employer and the Intervenor contend that the petition is barred by their contract of August 31, 1955, or by the automatic renewal thereof. In the recent Pacific Coast Association of Pulp and Paper Manufacturers case,' the Board decided that "henceforth a valid contract having a fixed term or duration shall constitute a bar for as much of its term as does not exceed 2 years (emphasis supplied) and that any contract having a fixed term in excess of 2 years shall be treated, for the purpose of contract bar, as a contract for a fixed term of 2 years, notwithstanding the fact that a substantial part of the industry of which the contracting employer is a part may be covered by contracts for a longer term." As the petition in the instant case was filed more than 2 years after the effective date of the August 31, 1955, contract, we find that it is not barred by that contract. Neither is there a renewed contract which might serve as a bar, contrary to the contentions of the Employer and the Intervenor. Even assuming that the contract of August 31, 1955, was automatically renewed on its Mill B date of July 2, 1958,' the renewed contract would not become effective until August 31, 1958, after the expiration date of the old contract, and the petition herein was filed on July 9, 1958, prior to such effective date. The Board has held that a petition is timely if filed prior to the effective date of a contract where the contract by its terms goes into effect at sometime subsequent to its execution 4 Accordingly, we find there is no bar to the petition, and that a question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa- tion of certain employees of the Employer, within Section 9(c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.' :4. The following employees of the Employer constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within Section 2 121 NLRB 990. $ The General Electric X-Ray rule on which the Petitioner relied was overruled by the Board in Deluxe Metal Furniture Company, 121 NLRB 995. 4Deluxe Metal Furniture Company , supra, footnote 6. See also National Broadcasting Company, Inc., 104 NLRB 587. It is also clear that the Mill B period was not an in- sulated period . Thus, the Board said in the Deluxe Metal Furniture Company case, supra : "Where the contract is one of `unreasonable duration ,' the insulated - period- will be the last 60 days of the reasonable period." 6 As we find the existing contract to be no bar on other grounds, it is not necessary for us to consider the effect of a wage reopening request made by the Intervenor on July 2, 1958. 206 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 9(b) of the Act: a All production and maintenance employees at the Employer's Knoxville, Tennessee, plant, including employees in the transportation and shipping departments, and leadmen, but excluding all office and plant clerical employees, salesmen, buyers, professional employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. [Text of Direction of Election' omitted from publication.] 9 The appropriate unit was stipulated at the hearing. 7 It was agreed that all employees laid off since May 1, 1957, were temporarily maid or, and would be eligible to participate in the election. Crane Carrier Corporation and Local 790, International Associa- tion of Machinists, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 16-RC- 2266. November 24, 1958 SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND CERTIFICA- TION OF RESULTS OF ELECTION Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election dated March 24, 1958,1 an election by secret ballot was conducted on April 17, 1958, by the Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region among the em- ployees in the unit found appropriate by the Board. Following the election, a tally of ballots was furnished the parties which shows that of 86 ballots cast, 42 were for the Petitioner, 42 were against the Petitioner, and 2 were challenged. On April 24, 1958, the Petitioner filed eight objections to conduct affecting the results of the election. In accordance with the Board's Rules and Regulations, the Regional Director conducted an investigation of the challenges and objections, and on May 26,1958, issued his report on challenged ballots and objec- tions, recommending that only the objection concerning the meetings in the Employer's conference room be sustained and that the chal-, lenges to the ballots be overruled. The Employer thereafter filed exceptions to the Regional Director's recommendations concerning the 1 objection and 1 of the challenged ballots. On August 29, 1958, the Board issued a Supplemental Decision 2 wherein it deferred ruling on the objection but directed the Regional Director to open and count one challenged ballot. The revised tally of ballots thereafter prepared by the Regional Director shows that a majority of ballots-43-were cast against the Petitioner. The ob- jection which is in issue is now before the Board for ruling. 1 Unpublished. 8121 NLRB 756. 122 NLRB No. 32.