Republic Aviation Corp.

998 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Republic Aviation Corporation and Independent Association of Millwrights, Maintenance Welders and Helpers, Ind., Peti- tioner. Case No. '-RC-934. January 19, 1959 DECISION AND ORDER Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Louis A. Schneider, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Upon consideration of the entire record, and the briefs of the parties 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.2 3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the represen- tation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9(c) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act for the following reasons: The Employer and the Intervenor contend that their current labor agreement is a bar to the instant petition. On February 19, 1955, these parties executed a contract for a 3-year period. On June 7, 1956, as a result of a strike settlement agreement, they extended the term of this contract to March 31, 1958. Approximately 60 days prior to the termination of the extended contract the Employer and Intervenor began negotiating for a new agreement. These negotia- tions were in progress at the time the Petitioner filed its petition on March 17, 1958. The current labor agreement was executed on April 10, 1958, and is effective for approximately a 2-year period beginning April 1, 1958. The February 19, 1955, contract is one of more than 2 years' dura- tion and therefore, as set forth in the Pacific Coast case,' the Board will treat it, for the purpose of applying the contract-bar rules relating to prematurely extended contracts and the timeliness of petitions, as a contract for 2 years. By the June 7, 1956, agreement, the parties extended the contract to March 31, 1958. In Pacific Coast, we stated that extension of such a contract executed within the first 2 years of its duration-except during the last 60 days of this period-will be treated as a premature extension of the contract and petitions filed from 150 to 60 days before this 60-day insulated I 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-member panel [ Chairman Leedom and Members Bean and Jenkins]. 3 Republic Lodge 1987 of the International Association of Machinists , AFL-CIO, was permitted to intervene on the basis of its contractual interest in the employees Involved. 3 Pacific Coast Association of Pulp and Paper Manufacturers , 121 NLRB 990. 122 NLRB No. 122. TEXAS CARTAGE COMPANY 10 period of the original contract will be considered timely in relation to the extended contract. Thus, if a petition had been filed herein from 150 to 60 days before February 19, 1957, it would have been timely and there would have been no contract bar. However, no petition was filed during that period and under our established pre- mature-extension doctrine, as modified by our decision in Deluxe Metal,4 the extended contract, which was for a term of about 22 months, became a bar to any petition not filed from 150 to 60 days before its terminal date of March 31, 1958.6 In Deluxe Metal, the Board indicated that any contract which would be effective as a bar would be given a 60-day insulated period immediately preceding and including the expiration date of the con- tract. As the petition in this case was filed during the insulated period of the extended contract, we find that it was untimely filed and must be dismissed .6 [The Board dismissed the petition.] 4 Delucce Metal Furniture Company, 121 NLRB 995. c National Foundry Company of New York, Inc., 109 NLRB 357. e The Steck Company, 122 NLRB 12. Texas Cartage Company and Andrew Franks, Petitioner and Local 299, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf- feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America. Case No. 7-UD-13. January 19, 1959 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a union-shop deauthorization petition duly filed under Sec- tion 9(e) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Herman Corenman, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. 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- member panel [Members Rodgers, Jenkins, and Fanning]. 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 organization involved claims to represent certain employees of the Employer. 3. The Petitioner seeks to rescind the authority of Local Union 299, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware- housemen and Helpers of America, hereinafter called the Union, to 122 NLRB No. 120.