New Jersey Oyster Planters and Packers Association, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 24, 1952

101 N.L.R.B. 538 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

538 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Local 167,, AFL, as the exclusive representative of all its employees in the afore-
said appropriate unit. relative to the rentals of company -owned houses occupied
by employees, the Respondent has engaged in and is.engaging in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (5) of the Act.
5. By said acts the Respondent has interfered with, restrained , and coerced
its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act
and thereby engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication in this volume.]
Appendix A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that :
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively with United Cement, Lime and
Gypsum Workers International Union, Local 167, AFL, as the exclusive
representative of all the employees in the bargaining unit described herein
with respect to changes in rentals of company-owned houses at our Ford-
wick plant.
WE WILL NOT make any unilateral changes affecting any employees in the
unit represented by the union with respect to company housing without prior
consultation with the union.
The bargaining unit is :
All maintenance and production employees at our Fordwick plant, exclud-
ing all supervisory, laboratory, and clerical employees.
LEHIGH PORTLAND CEMENT COMPANY,
Employer.
Dated ------------------ By -----------------------------------------
(Representative )^ (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof , and must
not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
NEW JERSEY OYSTER PLANTERS AND PACKERS ASSOCIATION, INC. and
UNITED PACKINGHOUSE WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER.
Case No. 4-RC-1673. November 24, 1952
Decision and Direction of Election
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Harold X. Summers, 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 Peterson].
101 NLRB No. 118.
NEW JERSEY OYSTER PLANTERS AND PACKERS ASSN., INC . 539
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employers are engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim I to represent certain
employees of the Employers.
3. The Employers and Local 56 urge as a bar to the instant pro-
ceeding an agreement between themselves executed on May 9, 1952,
and effective until September 30, 1953. The Petitioner contends that
this contract is no bar because it is a premature extension of a contract
previously executed between the Employers and the United Oyster-
men's Union, Local 19600, AFL, hereinafter referred to as Local
19600, and effective until September 30, 1952, with a 60-day automatic
renewal clause. The petition herein was filed on July 23, 1952.
The Board files reveal that the Petitioner recently filed a petition
in Case No. 4-RC-1413 seeking the same unit of the Employers'
employees as sought herein. In that case, Local 19600 intervened
at the hearing which was held on March 4, 1952, and urged that its
contract referred to above, which had a substantial period of time
to run, was a bar to determination of representatives at that time.
The Board in its Decision and Order issued on April 15, 1952, upheld
Local 19600's contract bar contention and dismissed the petition?
In the instant proceeding the record discloses that Local 19600, at
a membership meeting held in February 1952, voted to consolidate
with Local 56. This action by Local 19600 was reaffirmed by its
membership at a subsequent meeting held in early March 1952. By
letter dated April 18, 1952, the regional director of the AFL, who
was appointed to act as administrator of Local 19600, advised the
Employers that he had "directed and approved the taking over" of
Local 19600 by Local 56 and that Local 56 was now the bargaining
agent of the Employers' employees, and further advised the Employers
that the contract between the Employers and Local 19600 "is to be
considered terminated." Subsequently, on May 9, 1952, the Employers
and Local 56 signed a new contract .-3
Upon the foregoing facts, we find no merit to Local 56's contention
that as the result of the consolidation of both unions, the existing
contract between the Employers and Local 19600 was automatically
terminated and removed as a bar so as to render inapplicable the
premature extension doctrine to the execution of a new contract. The
'Meat and Cannery Workers Union, Local 56, affiliated with the Amalgamated Meat
Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL, hereinafter referred to as Local 56,
was permitted to intervene at the hearing on the basis of its contractual interest.
s New Jersey Oyster Planters and Packers Association, Inc., 98 NLRB 1187.
$ Although the May 9 contract provided for a wage increase, it incorporated for the
most part and in the same language the provisions of the previous contract. In addition,
article 111, section 2 of the May 9 contract refers to the previous contract as "between the
parties."
540 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
facts here reveal no schism in the contracting union resulting in the
establishment of a new union which challenged the representative
status of the existing local. Rather the facts clearly reveal that the
change in character and status of Local 19600 has been mainly one of
designation and affiliation which never left any doubt or confusion as
to the existing bargaining representative. Where the only change
in the bargaining representative has been of the character noted above,
the Board, despite such change, has upheld the existing contract as a
valid and subsisting agreement and effective as a bar.4 Thus the
contract between the Employers and Local 56 executed on May 9, 1952,
was, in effect, a premature extension of the previous contract which,
as noted above, was effective until September 30, 1952 5
Moreover, although the record shows that Local 19600 voted to
coLsolidate with Local 56 in February 1952, its contract with the Em-
ployers was subsequently urged as a bar to the Petitioner's petition
in Case No. 4-RC-1413, with the result that the petition in that case
was dismissed. Under such circumstances, the parties are now
estopped from pleading that the consolidation of the two locals had
the effect of changing the identity of the contracting local so as to
render inapplicable the premature extension doctrine as a basis for
finding the new contract not a bar. As the petition herein was timely
filed with respect to the automatic renewal date of the original con-
tract, we find no bar to a present determination of representatives.
We find that a question affecting commerce exists concerning the
representation of employees of the Employers within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. We find, in accordance with the agreement of the parties, that all
production and maintenance employees 6 of the employer-members of
the New Jersey Oyster Planters and Packers Association, Inc., in-
cluding crew members but excluding office clericals, captains, and all
other supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute an appropriate unit
for the purpose of collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9 (b) of the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
Michigan Bell Telephone Company, 85 NLRB 303; Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone
Company, 89 NLRB 231; see Harris-Woodson Co., Inc., 85 NLRB 1215; Missouri Service
Company , 87 NLRB 1142.
5 Western Electric Company, Incorporated , 85 NLRB 563. In applying the premature
extension doctrine, it is immaterial whether the supplemental contract is treated analyti-
cally as a new contract or as the extension of an existing agreement. Blasr Limestone
Company, 70 NLRB 689. or is it material that the employees may have received sub-
stantial benefits under the terms of the new agreement , Radio Corporation of America,
89 NLRB 1226.
9 The unit herein is limited to those employees concerned with the planting , dredging,
packing , or shipping of oysters.