North Range Mining Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 4, 1943

47 N.L.R.B. 1306 (N.L.R.B. 1943)

In the Matter of NORTH R ANGE MINING COMPANY and LOCAL #2739,
UNITED STEEL WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO.
Case No. R-4844.-Decided March, 4, 143
Jurisdiction : iron mining industry.
Practice and Procedure : petition dismissed, when rival union's request for rep=
resentation based on a previous petition was held no longer operative after
that petition was dismissed because contracts had several months to run,
and second petition was filed after automatic renewal date, so that contracts
were held to constitute a bar.
Mr. Francis X. Helgesen, for the Board. ' r
Mr. R. A. MacDonnell, of Gilbert, Minn., for the Company.
Mr. Adron Coldiron, of Hibbing, Minn., for the USA.
Mr. Dale L. Burcliett, of Minneapolis, Minn., for- the Engineers.
Mr. D. A. Bourgin, of Virginia, Minn., for the Teamsters.
Mr. David V. Easton, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon petition duly filed by Local #2739, United Steelworkers of
America, CIO, herein called the USA, alleging that a question affect-
ing commerce had arisen concerning the representation of employees
of North Range Mining Company, Gilbert, Minnesota, herein called
the Company, the National Labor Relations Board provided for an
appropriate hearing upon due notice before Stephen M.-Reynolds,
Trial Examiner. Said hearing was held at Virginia, Minnesota, on
February 5, 1943. , The Company, the USA, Local Union No. 49,
International Union of Operating Engineers, A. F. of L., herein
called the Engineers, and Local Union No. 615, International Broth-
erhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America, herein called the Teamsters, appeared, 'participated, and
were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-
examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues.
The Engineers and Teamsters moved to dismiss the petition of the
USA insofar as it relates to employees of the Company in units repre-
47 N. L R B., No 104 -
1306
NORTH RANGE MINING COMPANY 1307
sented'by then, on -the ground that such employees are covered by
valid renewed contracts between them and the Company. These
motions were referred by the Trial Examiner to the Board. For rea-
sons set forth hereafter, the motions to dismiss the petition are
granted. The 'Trial Examiner's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the-following:
FINDINGS OF FACT'
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
I
North Range Mining Company, a Michigan corporation, owns and
,operates three iron ore mines in Michigan, and the Schley Mine in
Gilbert,' Minnesota. We are concerned with the employees of the
Schley Mine in the instant proceeding. In 1942, the Company mined
907,000 tons of merchantable iron ore at the Schley Mine which was
shipped principally to operators in Cleveland, Ohio, and Chicago,
Illinois. We find that the Company is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the National Labor,Relations Act.
II. THEIORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Local Union No. 2739, United Steelworkers of America, is a labor
organization affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations,
admitting to membership employees of the Company.
Local Union No. 49, International Union of Operating Engineers,
and Local Union No. 615, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, are both labor
,organizations affiliated with the American Federation, of Labor,
admitting to membership employees of the Company.
III. THE ALLEGED QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
On or about July 25, 1942, the USA requested recognition from the'
Company as bargaining agent for its employees engaged at the Schley
Mine. The Company refused recognition upon the ground that it
had 'contracts with the Teamsters and the Engineers, which did not
expire until March 1, 1943. Thereupon the USA filed a petition
which was later dismissed by the Regional Director. By letter dated
January 4, 1943, the USA again requested recognition from the
Company. Not receiving any reply to this letter, the USA filed the
petition in the instant case on January 11, 1943.
The contracts between the Company and the Teamsters and the
Engineers both contained the following provision :'
This agreement, shall be in full force, and effect from 12: 01 A. M.,
March 26, 1941, to and including March 1, 1942, and shall con-
1308 DECISIONS , 0F ATATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tinue in full force and effect from year to year tliereafter'unless
written notice of desire to change or -modify, the agreement is
served by either party hereto upon the other not less than sixty
(60) days nor more'than ninety (90) clays prior to the annual
date of expiration.
None of the contracting parties gave notice of termination,in 1941
or 1942; all of them contend that the contracts constituted a bar to
the present proceeding, inasmuch.as they Were automatically renewed
on January 1, 1943.
We are of the opinion that the contracts beticeen the Company
and the Teamsters and the Engineers constitute a bar to an investi-
gation and certification of ,representatives at this time. It .is clear
that no question concerning representation existed when the first
petition of, the US A was dismissed, since the .'contracts then had
several months -to run before being automatically renewed 1 After
the dismissal of the petition, we are of the ppinion that-the request
9r claim upon which it was based was no longer operative. There
is no evidence in the record that the USA made a new request to the
Company for collective bargaining between the time of the dismissal
of the first petition and January 4; 1943. There was, therefore, no
claim pending on January 1, 1943, to raise a question concerning
representation which would prevent the contracts from being auto-
matically renewed. We find,that the request of the USA on January
4 was untimely, and we shall accordingly grant the motions of the
Teamsters and' the Engineers to dismiss the petition.2 This dis-
missal,_however, shall not prejudice the right of the USA to file a
new petition at a reasonable time before January 1, 1944, when notice
pursuant to the contract is due. '
We find that no question has arisen concerning the-rep resentati