Pride Manufacturing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 4, 1952

98 N.L.R.B. 445 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

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 ifot 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 under 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.
2 Leanttes 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-RC-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.
446 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR, RELATIONS BOARD
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 organizations involved claim to represent employees
of the Employer? -
3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the repre-
sentation 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 Employer has engaged, since 1946, in the manufacture of
stainless steel sinks of which an essential ingredient is nickel-bearing
stainless steel. The Employer normally employs 60 to 70 employees.
Since the U. S. Government restricted the commercial use of this
material some 8 months ago, the Employer has been in the process of
reducing its force. At the time of the hearing, January 29, 1952,
the Employer had in its employ 11 individuals,. of which 7 were to
be laid off on January 29, 1952, and the remaining 4 on January 30,
1952. On January 30,1952, the Employer expected to cease operations
until such time as it was again permitted to use nickel-bearing stain-
less steel in the manufacture of its products. The Employer testified
that unless such material is received in the near future, it anticipates
that operations would not be resumed during 1952, and that in any
event, the plant would not resume operations before August 1952.
The Petitioner desires to be certified as the bargaining representative
of employees in the operations of the Employer. The Employer
moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that the operation was
scheduled to be shut down shortly after the date of the hearing, and
that any future operation is indefinite in character.
We find merit in the Employer's position. Under the circumstances,
we are of the opinion that no useful purpose will be served by pro-
ceeding with a determination of representatives at this time. Accord-
ingly, we shall dismiss the petition without prejudice to the filing of
a new petition if and when the Employer resumes operations.2
Order
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition filed herein be, and it hereby
is, dismissed without prejudice.3
I International Association of Machinists, Local Lodge No. 52 , intervened on the basis
of a contractual interest.
s See Donovan, James, Wismer, cE Becker, 93 NLRB 1562 ; A. R. Tohi, 97 NLRB 93.
In view of our dismissal of the petition herein, we find it unnecessary to discuss other
questions raised by the parties.