Bemis Bro. Bag Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 15, 1951

97 N.L.R.B. 1 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

BEMIS BRO. BAG Co. and TEXTILE WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, CIO,
PETITIONER . Case No. 35-RC--514. November 15, 1951
Decision and Order
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Robert Volger, hear-
ing 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 [Chairman Herzog and Members Reynolds and Murdock].
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 employees
of the Employer.
3. No question affecting commerce- exists concerning the represen-
tation 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:
On April 19, 1949, a contract was entered into by the Intervenor
and the Employer effective to March 1, 1951, and automatically
renewable from year to year thereafter unless 60 days' prior notice
was given by either party. By letter of December 27, 1950, the Inter-
venor notified the Employer of its desire to reopen the contract. Nego-
tiations commenced on January 19, 1951, and continued through
approximately six meetings thereafter, terminating on March 15, 1951.
A copy of the 1949 contract was used as a basis for discussion during
these negotiations. Agreed changes in the terms of this old contract
were made by deletions and additions in ink on the copy of the contract.
On March 14, the copy of the 1949 contract with inked-in changes
was initialed by Mr. H. F. Wilson, the personnel and cost manager
of the Employer, and Mr. C. D. Carter, the president of the Inter-
venor,2 at each place where handwritten changes in the 1949 contract
I Independent Employees Association , hereinafter referred to as Intervenor , was allowed
to intervene on the basis of an existing collective bargaining agreement with the Employer.
The request for oral argument by the Employer is hereby denied as the record and the
briefs , in our opinion , adequately present the issues and the positions of the parties.
2 Wilson and Carter were present at each meeting between the Employer and the Inter-
venor ; and they conducted most of the negotiations.
97 NLRB No. 1.
1
2 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
appeared. At the same time the initials of Wilson and Carter were
subscribed to an insert on the last page of the contract, as follows :
Changes as given are agreed on today. To call C.D.A. [plant
manager] and notify him new contract agreeable to I.E.A. [Inter-'
venor] and company.' Find when he wants to make new contract
operational and in full force. Do not suggest it be in full opera-
tion until 3/19
[initialed] O. K.. H. W. 3/14/51
[initialed] O. K. C. D. C. 3/14/51
Wilson and Carter met on the morning of March 15, 1951, and
wrote in a provision on the initialed document that the contract would
-become effective March 19, 1951, and initialed this provision. On the
same day, Wilson sent a letter to Carter which confirmed March 19,
1951, as the effective date, and also confirmed acceptance of the labor
agreement.
Between March 14 and 16, Wilson notified the superintendent, an
assistant superintendent, and the employment manager of the Em-
ployer that a new contract had been completed and agreed upon, and
that it would become effective on March 19, 1951. He also instructed
the supervisor of the payroll department to pay the second shift em-
ployees the wage increase, and, commencing March 19, these employees
were compensated at the higher rate.
Petitioner made its claim of representation in a letter of March 27,
1951, to the Employer. - Two days later, all terms of the document,
initialed on March 14 and 15, were transcribed verbatim, and in this
final form the agreement was signed on March 29 by representatives
of the Employer and the Intervenor,' including Wilson and Carter.
The petition in this proceeding was docketed April 6, 1951.
The Employer and the Intervenor contend that a valid effective
contract was entered into by March 15, and that the contract is a
bar to the petition. The Petitioner disagrees, averring that the con-
tract cannot be a bar as it was not signed until March 29, 1951.
We recognize that signatures may be made to a contract in abbrevi-
ated form, as by the use of initials' Therefore, the March 15 contract
is a complete, signed agreement unless the parties initialing it were
not authorized to execute the contract, and ratification of their action
was necessary to make the contract effective and binding. The evi-
dence in the record indicates that Wilson and Carter had full authority
to make a binding contract. - If other proof of their authority is
needed, it is evidenced by the notification by Wilson to several of
his subordinates between March 14 and 16 of the existence of a new
3 Five representatives of the Employer and either seven or eight representatives of the
Intervenor signed the agreement on March 29. Several other representatives of the
Intervenor sighed at a later date
4 2 Williston, Contracts (rev. ed. 1936) Sec 585; f7 C J. S. Contracts Sec. 62 (b).
AMERICAN BROADCASTING COMPANY, INC. 3
contract , and by the fact that its terms were then put into effect on
March 19, 1951; its effective date. The ceremony on March 29, 1951,
was merely in the nature of a reexecution of the document in a more
legible and convenient form . In our opinion , therefore , on March
15, there existed an explicit , comprehensive , written and signed record
of the entire understanding between the parties which stabilized
bargaining relations for the employees concerned . Accordingly, the
contract is a bar to the petition in this proceeding.'
Order
r. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition filed herein be, and it hereby
is, dismissed without prejudice.
" See The Carborundum Company, 78 NLRB 91: Armour & Company, 66 NLRB 209. Cf.
Roddis Plywood & Door Company, Inc., 84 NLRB 309
AMERICAN BROADCASTING COMPANY, INC. and INTERNATIONAL ALLIANCE
OF THEATRICAL STAGE EMPLOYEES AND MOVING PICTURE MACHINE
OPERATORS OF THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA, AFL, PETITIONER.
Case No. 2-RC-3555. November 15, 1951
Decision and Direction of Election
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before I. L. Broadwin,
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 National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection
with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Herzog and
Members Reynolds and Murdock].
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 certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. A 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.
4. The Petitioner contends that all sound effect technicians and ap-
prentices of the Employer's New York City operations, excluding
sound effects technicians doing recording of transcriptions, managers,
assistant managers, guards, watchmen, and supervisors as defined in
the Act, constitute an appropriate unit. The Intervenor (National
Association of Broadcast Engineers and Technicians, CIO) contends
97 NLRB No.4.