Plainfield Courier-News Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 4, 1951

97 N.L.R.B. 260 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

260 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that the supplemental contract of February 10, 1951, restored their
contract as a bar to the petition filed on March 5, 19516
The record in the reopened hearing shows that the Intervenor served
a notice upon the Employer approximately 60 days before the expi-
ration of the March 1948 contract, requesting the reopening of the
same, and seeking to negotiate terms for a new contract. We believe
that this notice clearly satisfied the requirements of Section 8 (d) (1)
of the Act, and that it is within the rule of the De Soto Creamery case.'
We find no merit in the Petitioner's contention that the 60-day notice
served by the Intervenor upon the Employer was of no effect because
the terms of the contract of January 19, 1951, had in fact been agreed
upon before this notice had been served.8 For reasons more fully
stated in the De Soto Creamery case, we find that the 60-day notice
served by the Intervenor upon the Employer before the expiration
date of the original contract, and the execution of a new contract with-
in the 60-day period, barred the petition of March 5, 1951.9 We shall
dismiss this petition.
Order
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition filed herein on March 5, 1951,
be, and the same hereby is, dismissed.
8 The Petitioner contended that the supplemental agreement of February 10, 1951, in
which the unlawful union -security provision was declared inoperative , had not been pub-
licized among the membership . It asserted that the Intervenor purposefully did not inform
the employees that the unlawful union-security provision was no longer in force , in order
to prevent the employees from leaving the Intervenor. This omission by the Intervenor
to inform Its membership that they were now free to stay in the union or not, prevented
the contract, in the Petitioner's view, from serving as a bar. However , we will treat the
February 10, 1951, supplemental agreement for what it purports to be, and, as such, it is
effective in preserving the contract as a bar.
+ See footnote 2, supra.
' The Intervenor 's witness testified at the second hearing that only minor changes were
made in the terms agreed upon before the 60-day notice was served.
9 In its brief on the reopened hearing, the Intervenor also contends that its contract of
March 8, 1948 , being for a 3-year term, was of unusual duration after the first 2-year
period , and hence could not have been prematurely extended under the Board's decision in
Cushman 's & Sons, 88 NLRB 121. In view of our finding herein, we find it unnecessary at
this time to discuss the principles involved in that case.
PLAINFIELD COURSER-NEWS Co. and ELIZABETH NEWSPAPER GUILD,
AFFILIATED WITH AMERICAN NEWSPAPER GUILD, CIO, PETITIONER.
Case No. 2-RC-2911. December 4, 1951
Supplemental Decision
Pursuant to the Decision and Direction of Election,l dated July 25,
1951, an election by secret ballot was conducted in this case on August
195 NLRB 532.
97 NLRB No. 46.
PLAINFIELD COURIER-NEWS CO. 261
20, 1951, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director
for the Second Region among the employees in the unit found appro-
priate in said decision. Upon the conclusion of the balloting, a tally
of ballots was issued and served upon the parties hereto. The tally
showed that of the three ballots cast, two were cast in favor of the
Petitioner and one was challenged. As the challenged ballot could
not affect the results of the election, no investigation was made with
respect to that ballot.
Thereafter, on August 24, 1951, the Employer filed objections to
the conduct of the election, on the asserted ground that failure by the
Board agent to make a preelection determination of eligible employees
in the unit resulted in failure of such employees to be afforded oppor-
tunity to vote.. The Regional Director investigated the objections and
afforded all parties an opportunity to submit evidence. On October
19, 1951, he issued his report on objections in which he found that the
Employer had been requested prior to the election to furnish the Board
agent with a list of eligible voters pursuant to the Board's direction
of election, but that the Employer had refused to do so. Thereafter,
at a conference between the parties it was agreed that two employees
were definitely eligible, to which group the Union suggested the addi.
tion of a third employee? A list of eligibles was then proposed by the
Union. The Employer was requested to supply additional names of
eligible voters, but declined to do so, at the same time insisting that
the Board make a preelection determination of eligible employees.
A list of names was then made up by the Board agent in the presence,
of the parties, and notices of the election were mailed to the individuals,
on this list.3 The election was held, as indicated above, at which the
Employer's observer was present. This observer thereafter signed
the certificate of conduct of the election and the tally of ballots.
The Regional Director concluded that because the Employer had
refused to present any names of employees who might have been eli-
gible to vote, the Employer cannot now be heard to object to the elec-
tion on the ground that any such employees were not advised of their-
eligibility to vote. In its exceptions to the report, the Employer
takes the position that it was the Board's and not the Employer's obli-
gation to furnish the list of eligibles in the unit.
We find no merit in the Employer's contentions. It is the estab-
lished practice of the Board to require the Employer, who has in his
possession the facts pertaining to the employment status of employees,
to furnish a proper eligibility list of employees prior to the election.
Any obligation on the part of the Regional Director tQ make a pre,
= This employee 's ballot was challenged at the election.
Notices were also posted in the newspaper offices.
986209-52-vol. 97-18
262 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
election determination of eligible voters is necessarily conditioned
upon information furnished by the Employer. The latter, although
requested by the Regional Director to supply information as to the
eligibility of named employees, did not do so. Furthermore, the
Employer has failed to show that in fact any eligible employees
failed to vote or that any ineligible employees voted.4 The Employer
therefore has not sustained a valid claim of prejudice as a result of
the Regional Director's failure to make a preelection determination
of eligibility.5 Under the circumstances, we find no basis for infer-
ring that the election was adversely affected by any omission on the
part of the Regional Director.
We find that the Employer's objections do not raise substantial
or material issues with respect to the conduct of the election. Accord-
ingly, the Employer's, objections and exceptions to the Regional Direc-
tor's report are hereby overruled.
In the Decision and Direction of Election previously referred to,
the Board made no final determination as to the appropriate unit.
The Board there stated :
If a majority of the employees in the voting group cast their
ballots for the Petitioner, they will be taken to have indicated
their desire to be a part of the existing editorial unit and the
Petitioner may bargain for such employees as part of the existing
unit.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following
supplemental findings of fact :
We find that all suburban correspondents of Plainfield Courier-
News Co., Plainfield, New Jersey, excluding stringers, supervisors,
and employees allied'with management, have selected Elizabeth News-
paper Guild, affiliated with the American Newspaper Guild, CIO,
as their bargaining representative. Because that organization is now
the recognized exclusive bargaining representative of the existing
editorial unit, and the results of the election show that the above-
named category has designated the Petitioner, the Petitioner may now
bargain for these employees as part of the existing unit which it
currently represents.
MEMBERS MURDOCK and STYLES took no par t in the consideration
of the above Supplemental Decision.
' Insofar as the Employer's objections are based upon the possibility that ineligible
employees may have voted in the election , such objections are in the nature of post-election
challenges which, under the established practice of the Board , are not entitled to considera-
tion. A J. Tower Company, 60 NLRB 1414 , enforced 329 U . S. 324.
5 F. W. Woolworth Co., 96 NLRB 380.