Julian B. Slevin Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 21, 1951

94 N.L.R.B. 1427 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

JULIAN B. SLEVIN COMPANY, INC. 1427
for. the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Sec-
tion 9 (b) of the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.] _
JULIAN B. SLEVIN COMPANY, INC. and SLEVIN EMPLOYEES' INDEPEND-
ENT ASSOCIATION, PETITIONER. Case No. 4-RC-1105. June 21,
1951
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 E. Don Wilson, hear-
ing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the ruling 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 Houston, Reynolds, and Styles].
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 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.
The Intervenors contend that the petition herein should be dismissed
on the ground that an existing contract between the Employer and
the Intervenors bars a present determination of representatives. The
contract in question was executed on August 14, 1950, to expire April
18, 1951, and contained the following provision: "Either party hereto
desiring changes herein or termination. at the expiration date of this
agreement shall give notice in writing to the other party of such desire
at least sixty (60) days before any such date. Otherwise this agree-
ment shall remain in full force and effect from year to year."
It is the Intervenors' position that no-proper notice was given pur-
suant to the above-quoted clause, and that the contract therefore auto-
matically renewed itself on February 18, 1951, prior to the filing of
the instant petition. The record discloses the following facts pertinent
to this issue.
!International Brotherhood of Pulp, Sulphite and Paper Mill Workers , A. F. L., and
its Local 286, were permitted to intervene on the basis of a contract . with the Exaployer
covering the employees in the pr posed bargaining unit. - yy-L
94 NLRB No. 205.
1428 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On January 17, 1951, the Petitioner wrote to the Employer ad-
vising the Employer that it represented a majority of the employees,
requesting a meeting for the purpose of bargaining, and further re-
questing that the Employer not sign a contract with the Intervenors.
On January 25, 1951, the Employer replied to this letter advising the
Petitioner that it had a contract with the Intervenors and that it could
not bargain with the Petitioner until the latter was certified.
On February 15, 1951, the Employer wrote to the Board's Regional
Director. In that letter the Employer attached copies of the above-
noted correspondence between the Employer and the Petitioner, and
stated, "This Company will not enter into any bargaining procedures
with the Independent Association or renew the contract with the
Union with whom we now have [a] contract until [a] proper bargain-
ing agent is certified through a vote . . . I am also notifying the
Union, with whom we now have contract, of our decision as it appears
that two factions claim they represent the majority."
On that same day, February 15, 1951, the Employer sent a letter
to the Intervenors. The letter was addressed "International Brother-
hood of Pulp, Sulphite, and Paper Mill Workers, Philadelphia Local
#286, AFL, 1024 W. Girard Ave., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania." In
it the Employer stated that it had received a letter from the Petitioner
requesting recognition. The Employer enclosed a copy of the Peti-
tioner's letter of January 17, and. its reply of January 25. The Em-
ployer also enclosed a copy of its letter of February 15, 1951, to the
Board's Regional Director, and stated that that letter "is self-explan-
atory."
The contract in question designates both the International and
Local 286 as the "Union" but was signed for the "Union" by John
Burke, International president, Joseph Simone, International repre-
sentative, and Henry Segal, International auditor. However, Inter-
national Representative Simone is also president of Local 286 and
makes use of office space at 1024 W. Girard Avenue, Philadelphia 2
Segal, the International auditor, also has an office at 1024 W. Girard
Avenue.
On these facts the Intervenors contend that automatic renewal of
the contract was not forestalled because : (1) There was no adequate
notice to that effect, and (2) any notice was not to the proper parties.
We find no merit in either aspect of the Intervenors' contention.
. As to the argument that the notice was not adequate to forestall
automatic renewal, we note, as stated above, that the Employer's letter
of February 15 to the Intervenors enclosed a copy of the Employer's
letter of that same date to the Board's Regional Director, and specif-
ically called attention to that letter, designating it as "self-explan-
8 The officers of the International are located at Fort Edwards , New York.
RICHARD ALAN BUTTON COMPANY 1429
atory." The letter to the Regional Director stated that the Employer
would not renew the contract with the Intervenors. We believe that
taken together these letters clearly indicated the Employer's in-
tention not to renew the contract, and we find that such notice was
sufficient under the contract to forestall automatic renewal.3
Nor do we find persuasive the Intervenors' contention that the notice
was not to the proper parties. The Intervenors admit that the Em-
ployer's letter of February 15 was received by Local 286, but argue
that no notice was received by the International, which is a party
to the contract. However, as noted above, Simone acted in the dual
capacity of International representative and president of Local 286.
While the Intervenors assert that the International's constitution
requires that the International president sign all contracts, there is no
evidence of any limitation on the authority of International repre-
sentatives to receive notices binding upon the International. Under
all the circumstances, we conclude that the notice herein directed to
the local union which is a party to the contract and whose president
is an International representative, and himself a signatory to the
contract, was sufficient notice to both the local and the International .4
Accordingly, we find that the Employer's notice of February 15,
1951, forestalled the automatic renewal of the contract, and that such
contract does not bar the instant petition.
4. We find that the following employees of the Employer constitute
a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within
the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act: All production and main-
tenance employees, excluding office clerical and sales employees, and
supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
9 See Wisconsin Telephone Company, 75 NLRB 993.
4 Cf. North America Phillips Company, Inc ., 78 NLRB 666.
RICHARD ALAN BUTTON COMPANY and UNITED RUBBER , CORK, LINO-
LEUM & PLASTIC WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO , PETITIONER . Case No.
4-RC-1&185. Jume 22, 1951
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 Harold Kowal, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from
prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.'
' At the hearing Allied Trades Council, AFL, herein called the Intervenor , was permitted
to intervene on the basis of an alleged contractual interest.
94 NLRB No. 219.