Super Service Motor Freight Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 4, 1952

98 N.L.R.B. 444 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

444 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
SUPER SERVICE MOTOR FREIGHT CO., INC. and DISTRICT 67, INTER-
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, AFL, PETITIONER. COW,
No. 5-RC-917. March 4,1952
Decision and Order
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before John M. Dyer, 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 powers 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 organizations involved claim 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:
The Intervenor (Local 539, International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, AFL) and
the Employer entered into a contract effective September 1, 1950,
with an expiration date of August 31, 1951. The contract provided
that it should be automatically renewed for an additional year, unless
either party gave proper notice at least 60 days before its expiration
date. After due notice by the Intervenor, the parties negotiated as
to wage increases and on August 1, 1951, reached agreement. On the
latter date, the Employer and the Intervenor signed an informal
document containing the new wage rates and further providing that
"All other terms and conditions of the contract effective 9/1/50 to
8/31/51 are to remain the same." The agreement of August 1, 1951,
was ratified by the Intervenor's membership on August 5, 1951, and
on August 13 and 14, 1951, representatives of the Intervenor and the
Employer signed a formal contract incorporating the terms agreed
upon on August 1, 1951.
On August 14, 1951, the Employer's terminal manager was advised
by a telegraphic message that the IAM was seeking to represent the
employees. The IAM's petition was filed on August 20, 1951.
The Employer and the Intervenor contend that the agreement of
August 1, 1951, constitutes a bar to the present proceeding. The
98 14LRB No. 75.
PRIDE MANUFACTURING COMPANY 445
Petitioner urges, however, that it is not a bar because the parties did
not intend the agreement as a final one, because it was drafted and
signed in pencil, it was subsequently ratified by the membership, and
the parties deemed it necessary later to formalize the agreement. We
find no merit in the Petitioner's contentions. On August 1, 1951,
before the Petitioner's request for recognition, the Employer and the
Intervenor executed a written agreement sufficiently comprehensive
to stabilize bargaining relations for the employees concerned. That
the parties, without further bargaining on any contract provisions,
deemed it desirable to incorporate the August 1 agreement into a more
formal instrument, did ilot change the legal effect of the original
agreement.' Nor is it material that the membership later ratified the
agreement, as such ratification by the terms of the contract was not
a condition precedent to its validity and there is no evidence in the
record that the Intervenor's representative had no authority to make
a final and binding agreement 2 Accordingly, the contract executed
on August 1, 1951, is a bar to a present determination of representa-
tives and we shall therefore dismiss the petition.
Order
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition herein be, and it hereby is,
dismissed.
1 See The Carborundum Company, 78 NLRB 91 ; Bemis Bro. Bag Co., 97 NLRB 1. The
Petitioner's further contention that the contract is not a bar tinder the Board's "premature
extension" doctrine has no merit, as this agreement was entered into during the auto-
matic renewal period and before the Petitioner's representation claim. Northwestern
Publishing Company, 71 NLRB 167.
% Lewittes and Sons, 96 NLRB 775, and cases cited therein.
PRIDE MANUFACTURING COMPANY and UNITED ELECTRICAL , RADIO AND
MACHINE WORKERS OF AMERICA , PETITIONER . Case No. 6-RCi -954.
March 4,1952
Decision and Order
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 prejudical 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
Murdock and Styles].
98 NLRB No. 72.