Stone Paper Tube Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 27, 1951

94 N.L.R.B. 1623 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

STONE PAPER TUBE COMPANY 1623
mended, therefore, that the Respondent cease and desist from in any manner
interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of rights
guaranteed by the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in
the case, the undersigned Trial Examiner makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. International Union of Operating Engineers, Local No. 1, AFL, and Inter-
national Association of Machinists, are labor organizations within the meaning
of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Marie
Saltzgaber, Hilda Body Ralston, Elizabeth Merriman, and C. F. Mensing, the
Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
3. By such discrimination and by interfering with, restraining, and coercing
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the
Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication in this volume.]
STONE PAPER TUBE COMPANY and DISTRICT LODGE # 67, INTERNA-
TIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, PETITIONER . Case No. 5-RC-
738.. June 27, 1951
Decision and Order
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before John J. A. Reynolds,
Jr., 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 power in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Murdock 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 organization involved claims to represent employees
of the Employer.
3. No 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, for the following
reasons:
United Mine Workers, UMW, District #50, hereinafter called
the Intervenor, and the Employer have bargained with regard to
94 NLRB No. 238.
1624 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
these employees continuously since 1945, under a series of contracts
covering all production and maintenance employees of the Employer
and the Stone Straw Corporation, a closely associated company. On
October 28, 1949, the Intervenor and the Employer executed a con-
tract to expire on September 30, 1950. Pursuant to Section 8 (d)
of the Act as amended, on July 28, 1950, the Intervenor gave formal
notice to the Employer of its "desire and offer to confer for the pur-
pose of negotiating an extension with modifications of the existing
contract." On September 13, 1950, as a result of the negotiations
entered into pursuant to the afore-mentioned notice, the parties en-
tered into a new contract to expire on April 1, 1952. The petition
in the instant case was filed on September 25, 1950. The Intervenor
and the Employer contend that their current contract is a bar to this
petition.
Under the original Act and, until recently, under the amended
Act the Board had held that where, as here, the parties to a collective
bargaining agreement executed a new contract during the term of
an existing contract the former was a premature extension of the
latter and therefore no bar to a petition timely filed with regard to
the existing contract. Recently, however, the Board has had occasion
to reexamine its premature extension doctrine in the light of the re-
quirement for 60-day notice contained in Section 8 '(d) (1) of the
amended Act.' For the reasons stated in that case we find that the
contract of September 13, 1950, executed pursuant to the notice re-
quirements of Section 8 (d) (1) in the 60-day period before the ex-
piration of the existing contract and prior to the filing of the instant
petition, is a bar to a present determination of representatives. We
shall accordingly dismiss the petition.
Order
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition filed herein by District
Lodge #67, International Association of Machinists, be, and it
hereby is, dismissed.
MESTA MACHINE COMPANY and PATTERN MAKERS LEAGUE OF NORTH
AMERICA, PITTSBURGH ASSOCIATION, AFL, PETITIONER . Case No.
6-RC-755. June 27,1951
Decision and Direction of Election
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before Emil E.
Narick, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the
hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby, affirmed.
1 De Soto Creamery and Produce Company, 94 NLRB 1627.
94 NLRB No. 221.