Centr-O-Cast & Engineering Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 15, 1952

100 N.L.R.B. 1507 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

CENTR-O-CAST & ENGINEERING COMPANY 1507
owned dwellings , but excluding all other employees of the Em=
ployer, the carpenter foremen , draftsmen , land surveyors,
"measurers ," contractors, warehouse foremen , the four confiden-
tial clerks at the warehouse , office clericals , administrative , execu-
tive, and professional personnel , watchmen, foremen , guards, and
supervisors as defined in the Acts
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
MEMBERS HOUSTON and STYLES took no part in the consideration
of the above Supplemental Decision and Order Amending Decision
and Direction of Election.
6 The exclusions were stipulated by the parties at the hearing.
CENTR-O-CAST & ENGINEERING COMPANY, PETITIONER and LOCAL No.
985, INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT
AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, (UAW-CIO).
Case No. 7-RM-98. October 15, 1952
Decision and Order
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before Cecil Pearl,
hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are
free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the National Labor Relations 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:
On June 18, 1951, following a consent election, the Union was
designated by the Regional Director as having been selected by the
employees as their exclusive bargaining representative. On June 6,
1952, less than 1 year after the Regional Director's certification, the
Employer filed the instant petition. However, the Regional Director
did not process the petition until after the expiration of the certifica-
tion year.
It is a basic principle in Board law that, as stated by the Supreme
Court, "... a bargaining relationship once rightfully established
100 NLRB No. 253.
22 72605 3-vol. 10 0--9 6
1508 DECISIONS--OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
must be permitted to exist and function for a reasonable period in
which it can be given a fair chance to succeed." 1 A Board certifica-
tion has thus been held to identify the statutory bargaining agent with
certainty and finality, free from challenge as to its majority status,,
for a period of 1 year,' absent unusual circumstances.3 This minimum
period during which the employer, upon proper request, is obligated
under the Act to bargain in good faith with the certified union is, we
reaffirm, fair and reasonable. By thus substantially foreclosing any
question of representation and clearly defining the duty of the em-
ployer during the 1-year certification period, the Board has achieved
the dual purpose of encouraging the execution of a collective bargain-
ing contract and enhancing the stability of industrial relations.' No
contract was executed in this case.
In consonance with the policy of affording the employer and the
certified union full opportunity of arriving at an agreement within
the certification year, petitions filed before the twelfth month of such
year have been dismissed by the Board as having an intrusive and dis-
turbing effect upon the bargaining efforts of these parties for the re-
mainder of the certification period.5 But employee and decertifica-
tion petitions (RC and RD) filed in the final month of the certifica-
tion year were, in accordance with an administrative rule of the Board,
not dismissed but merely docketed by the Regional Director and al-
lowed to remain on filed unprocessed until the full year had ex-
pired.6 However, in the case of an employer petition, such as this, to
permit the employer the same right as other petitioners to file before
the end of the certification year would, in our opinion, encourage ac-
tion on its part wholly incompatible and inconsistent with its statutory
obligation to bargain in good faith for the full minimum period of 1
year following Board certification.
Aside from this, we have reconsidered the Board administrative rule
of holding, in inactive status, petitions filed in the twelfth month of a
certification year. Henceforth, we shall dispense with this rule and
dismiss all three types of petitions when filed at such time. For we
believe that the mere retention on file of such petitions, although un-
processed, cannot but detract from the full import of a Board certi-
fication, which should be permitted to run its complete 1-year course
before any question of the representative status of the certified union
1 Franks Bros Co. v N. L R. B , 321 U S 702, 705
z See e g., N L. R. B. v. Botany/ Worsted Mills, 133 F 2d 876 (C A 3), enfg 41 NLRB
218; N. L R B. v . Prudential Insurance Company of America, 154 F. 2d 385 (C A 6),
enfg. 56 NLRB 1849; Kimberly - Clark Corporation , 61 NLRB 90 Lift Trucks Inc., 75 NLRB
998; Southern Industry Co , 78 NLRB 425 ; The Belden Brick, Co , 83 NLRB 465.
3 E. g., Swift & Company , 94 NLRB 917 ( involving a schism issue during the certification
year).
* See Kimberly - Clark Corporation , supra.
E. g., Zenith Radio Corporation, 95 NLRB 1156.
e E. g., Central Truck Lines , Inc., 98 NLRB 374, ef . Reedley Ice Company , 85 NLRB 1205.
MACON KRAFT COMPANY 1509
is given format cognizance by the Board . Accordingly, we shall dis•
miss the Employer's petition herein , because it was filed before the
expiration of the certification year.7
Order
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition herein be, and it hereby is, dis-
missed.
CHAIRMAN HERZOG took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Order.
4 Prior decisions of the Board , including those cited in footnote 0, above, to the extent
that they are inconsistent herewith , are hereby overruled.
MACON KRAFT COMPANY' and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MA-
CHINISTS, LODGE No. 1034, A. F. OF L., PETITIONER
MACON KRAFT COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MA-
CHINISTS, LODGE No. 1034, A. F. or L., PETITIONER
MACON KRAFT COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION .OF MA-
CHINISTS, LODGE No. 1034, A. F. OF L., PETITIONER . Casks Nos.
10-RC-1975,10-RC-1976, and 10-RC-1977. October 15, 1952
Decision , Order , and Direction of Elections
Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the
National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Paul H.
Harper, 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 [Members Houston, Styles, and Peterson].
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.
4. The production and maintenance unit at the Employer's
container board plant is represented jointly by the International
I The Mead Corporation and the Inland Container Corporation, d/b/a Macon Kraft
Company, is a partnership.
100 NLRB No. 178.