NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
136 THIRD ANNUAL REPORT OF <strong>NATIONAL</strong> <strong>LABOR</strong> <strong>RELATIONS</strong> <strong>BOARD</strong><br />
modify or terminate, and the Board's decision and certification of<br />
representatives was issued on June 21, 1938.46<br />
The Board has also held that the existence of a contract does not<br />
preclude action by the Board where the contract in question has been<br />
in effect for a considerable period of time. In Matter of Metro-<br />
Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, 47 there was pleaded as a bar to the proceedings<br />
a written contract entered into between certain of the employers<br />
and Screen Playwrights, Inc. In answer to this contention the<br />
Board said:<br />
This agre,cnnent * * is for a term of 5 years. A year has already expired<br />
and the evidence raises a substantial question as to whether the employees<br />
involved desire the Screen Playwrights to continue to represent them.<br />
We do not believe that, under the policies and provisions of the Act, employees<br />
should be precluded from having the opportunity to select new representatives<br />
for collective bargaining for a period as long as 5 years because of a contra.ct<br />
running for that length of time. We therefore do not consider that the agreement<br />
* • * bars the certification of representatives at this time."<br />
In Matter of Seiss Manufacturing Company," a written contract for<br />
a term of 1 year had been entered into on August 1, 1936, and, upon<br />
its expiration, had been extended pursuant to an oral agreement. The<br />
Board, in its decision and direction of election issued May 26, 1938,<br />
held :<br />
In view of the indefinite term and character of the alleged oral agreement, it<br />
cannot in any event preclude an investigation and determination of representatives<br />
by the Board.<br />
The Board has also ruled that an existing contract does not operate<br />
as a bar to an election or certification by the Board in cases where<br />
"the unit described in the contract as appropriate, and on the basis of<br />
which the contract designates representatives for the purposes of collective<br />
bargaining differs * * * from the unit which the Board<br />
has found to be appropriate," as in Matter of The Kinnear Manufacturing<br />
Company.5°<br />
In Matter of American France Line, 51 the Board held that by<br />
filing the petitions for investigation and certification of representatives,<br />
the petitioning union had waived its rights to assert the existence<br />
of contracts which it had made with various companies included<br />
in the case as a bar to elections.62<br />
0 See also Matter of Sandusky Metal Products. Inc. and American Federation of Labor.<br />
6 N. L. R. B. 12 (direction of election issuethMarch 16, 1938—contract operative until end<br />
of first pay period in April 1938) ; Matter of Martin Bros. Box Company and Toledo Industrial<br />
Union Council, 7 N. L. R. B. 88 (direction of election issued May 10, 1938.—<br />
oral agreement expiring June 21. 1938) : Matter of Brown-Saltrnan Furniture Company<br />
and United Furniture 'Workers of America, Local No. 576, C. I. 0., 7 N. L. R. B. 1174<br />
(certification of representatives issued June 25, 1938—negotiatory period for new contract<br />
beginning July 1, 1938) ; Matter of Arbuckle Bros. and Committee for Industrial<br />
Organization on behalf of employees of Arbuckle Bros., 7 N. L. R. B. 1247 (direction<br />
of election issued June 28, 1938—contract expiring July 18, 1938).<br />
47<br />
matter of Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, and Motion Picture Producers Assn., et a/.,<br />
and Screen Writers' Guild, Inc.. 7 N. L. R. B. 662.<br />
" See Matter of .Uubinger Company and Corn Products Workers Union. No. 19931, and<br />
Hubinger Company Employees Representation Plan, 3 N. L. R. B. 802 and 4 N. L. R. 13. 428,<br />
in which the contract involved became effective on December 1, 1935, and was to continue<br />
in effect until January 1. 1938. After the contract had been in effect for approximately a<br />
year and a half, the petitioning union, claiming a membership of a majority of the employees.<br />
demanded recognition as sole collective bargaining agent. The Board found that<br />
a question had arisen concerning the representation of employees and, on October 5, 1937,<br />
issued its direction of election.<br />
40 Matter of Sei.88 Manufacturing Company and Committee for Industrial Organization,<br />
7 N. L. R. 13. 481.<br />
50 Matter of The Kinnear Manufacturing Company and Steel Workers Organizing Committee<br />
affiliated with Committee for Industrial Organization, 4 N. L. R. B. 773.<br />
Sr Matter of American France Line et a/. and International Seamen's Union of America,<br />
.3 N. L. R. B. 64.<br />
,2 In the same case, but with reference to the opposing union. National Maritime Union<br />
of America, the Board said : "Similarly the filing of petitions by N. M. U. in Matter of