Lloyd Corp. Ltd.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 15, 1949

87 N.L.R.B. 631 (N.L.R.B. 1949)

In the Matter of LLOYD CORPORATION, LTD., EMPLOYER and DENNIS L.
SNYDER, EMPLOYEE , PETITIONER and OIL WORKERS INTERNATIONAL
UNION AND ITS LOCAL No. 120, C. I. 0., UNION
Case No. 21-RD-89.-Decided December 15, 1949
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before James W.
Cherry, Jr., hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the
hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. The
Union's motion to dismiss the petition upon the ground that an exist-
ing collective bargaining contract and settlement agreement is a bar
to this proceeding, is denied for the reasons given in paragraph 3,
below.
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 Gray].
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The business of the Employer :
The Employer produces crude oil, wet gas, and natural gas from
oil wells in California. All its products are sold in California, the
crude oil and wet gas to corporations engaged in interstate commerce,
and the natural gas to the Pacific Lighting Corporation, which in
turn sells the gas to corporations engaged in commerce. In 1948, the
Employer purchased supplies valued in excess of $500,000 from
sources outside California.
We find that the Employer is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.'
2. The Petitioner, an employee of the Employer, asserts that the
Union is no longer the representative of the Employer's employees, as
defined in Section 9 (a) of the amended Act.
'TV. W. Holmes , -et as., 83 NLRB 49; Sunray Oil Corporation , 76 NLRB 970.
87 NLRB No. 92.
631
632 DECISIONS OF -NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
3. In 1947, following an election, the Board certified the Union as
the bargaining agent of the employees in the unit involved herein.
Thereafter, the Employer and the Union executed a collective bar-
-gaining agreement which expired on September 1, 1948. On Novem-
ber 3, 1948, an employee of the Employer filed a decertification
petition 2 with the Board which the Regional Director later dismissed,
because on December 9, 1948, the Union had filed a charge against the
Employer alleging violations of Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the Act.3
On June 2, 1949, the Employer and the Union signed a settlement
agreement which was approved by the Regional Director, disposing
of the unfair labor practice charges. Concurrently with the execu-
tion of the settlement agreement, the parties signed an "agreement to
amend and reinstate. as amended" the collective bargaining contract
which had expired on September 1, 1948. The present petition was
flied on August 1, 1949.
The reinstated contract is for a 1-year term, expiring June 2, 1950.
Article I, paragraph 2 of the original contract 4 was reinstated without
amendment, and reads as follows :
During the period of this Agreement either party may request
a change or changes in the wage rates currently paid by the Com-
pany, in length of work week or in classifications. Upon any
such request the parties hereto shall meet in conference within a
period of thirty (30) days from receipt of such notice for con-
sideration of the proposed change or changes, and in the event
an agreement is not reached within sixty (60) clays from the date
of receipt of such notice, this Agreement shall be of no further
force or effect.
It is evident that either contracting party, by requesting changes
to which it knows the other will not agree, may unilaterally cause the
termination of the agreement at any time. We have previously found
that such a clause makes a contract terminable at will, and hence no
bar to a petition filed by a rival union 5
'However, the Union urges the contract as a bar to this proceeding
on the ground that, because the contract was executed concurrently
with the settlement agreement approved by the Regional Director, it
is a part of the settlement agreement, and therefore the presence of
paragraph 2 in the contract should not prevent the operation of the
2 Case No. 21-RD-59. An appeal from the Regional Director' s dismissal was taken' to
the Board, and the dismissal was affirmed on June 7, 1949.
2 Case No. 27-CA-299.
* The record shows that paragraph 2 is a standard clause found in most, if not all,
of the Union's collective bargaining agreements. .
G Summerill Tubing Company, 60 NLRB 896; cf. Tenne.4see Coal, Iron & Railroad Com-
pany, 65 NLRB 1416.
LLOYD CORPORATION, LTD. 633
contract as a bar. We find insufficient merit in this contention. The
Regional Director's approval of the settlement agreement gave the
contract no greater effect than the parties themselves intended. As
the parties voluntarily entered into a contract terminable at will, we
perceive no reason to treat the contract differently from any other
containing a similar clause. We find therefore that neither the con-
tract nor the settlement agreement constitutes a bar to this proceeding.
Accordingly, we find that a question affecting commerce exists con-
cerning the representation of employees of the Employer within the
meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The parties agree, and we find, that all production and mainte-
uance employees at the Employer's Ventura and Paloma, California,
oil fields, excluding office and clerical employees, technical employees,
guards and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appro-
priate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9 (b) of the Act.
' DIRECTION OF ELECTION
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the
purposes of collective bargaining with the Employer, an election by
secret ballot shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later than
30 days from the date of this Direction, under the direction and super-
vision of the Regional Director for the Region in which this case was
heard, and subject to Sections 203.61 and 203.62 of National Labor
Relations Board Rules and Regulations, among the employees in the
unit found appropriate in paragraph numbered 4, above, who were
employed during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date
of this Direction of Election, including employees who did not work
during said pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation or tem-
porarily laid off, but excluding those employees who have since quit or
been discharged for cause and have not been rehired or reinstated prior
to the date of the election, and also excluding employees on strike who
are not entitled to reinstatement, to determine whether or not they
desire to be represented, for purposes of collective bargaining, by Oil
Workers International Union and its Local No. 120, C. I. O.