Dallas-fort Worth Brewing Company, Employer And Stationary Engineers, Local No. 707, International Union Of Operating Engineers, Afl, Petitioner, 681 (1949)

In the Matter of DALLAS-FORT WORTH BREWING COMPANY, EMPLOYER and STATIONARY ENGINEERS, LOCAL NO. 707, INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS, AFL, PETITIONER Case No. 16-RC-370.--Decided June 28, 1949 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before James P. Wolf, hearing officer of the National Labor Relations Board. At the hearing, Brewery Workers Local Union No. 157, International Union of United Brewery, Flour, Cereal, Soft Drink and Distillery Workers of America, CIO, herein called the Intervenor, moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that an existing collective bargaining contract is a bar to this proceeding. For reasons stated below, the motion is hereby denied. 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 National Labor Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Reynolds and Gray].

Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds:

1. The business of the Employer:

   The Employer is a Texas corporation engaged in the brewing, distribution, and sale of malt beer at Dallas, Texas. During the past 12 months, the Employer purchased raw materials, such as malt, corn, bottles, bottle caps, labels, cans, and cases valued at approximately $500,000, of which two-thirds were shipped to the Dallas plant from points outside the State of Texas. During the same period, the Employer's sales amounted to approximately $1,000,000, all of which were made within the State.

   We find that the Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.1 'Matter of The Consumers Brewing Company,

   Florida Brewery, Inc.,

   N. L. R. B. 208.

2. The Petitioner and the Intervenor are labor organizations claiming to represent employees of the Employer.

3. The question concerning representation:

   The Intervenor asserts that a collective bargaining contract signed with the Employer on March 24, 1948, is a bar to this proceeding.

   This contract is for a 1-year term, from June 1, 1948, to June 1, 1949, subject to automatic renewal for yearly terms thereafter, unless at least 60 days before any anniversary date either party serves written.

   notice upon the other of a desire to terminate or modify the contract.

   Neither contracting party served the notice referred to in the renewal clause. However, on March 30, 1949, before the 'Mill B' 2 or operative date of the automatic renewal clause, the Petitioner notified the Employer of its claim of representation, and...