Supreme Sunrise Food Exchange, Inc., 918 (1962)

9 18 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD SUPREME SUNRISE FOOD EXCHANGE, INC. and RETAIL FOOD CLERKS' UNION, LOCAL 1500 , RETAIL CLERKS' INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AFL, Petitioner. Case No. 2-RC- 5439. June 30, 1953 DECISION AND ORDER

Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Norman A.

Cole, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.

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

1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.

2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent employees of the Employer.

3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the representation 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:

   A current contract between the Employer and Amalgamated Meat Cutters and- Butcher Workmen of North America, Local 342, AFL, herein called the Intervenor, is alleged as a bar to this proceeding. On December 12, 1952, the expiration date of their previously existing 1-year contract, the Employer and the Intervenor executed a new contract , effective until December 12, 1955, with provision for automatic renewal.

   On December 15, 1952, the Petitioner first made its claim upon the Employer for recognition as the majority representative of the employees in question; and on December 16, 1952, it filed the petition herein. It is clear, and we find, that the claim and the petition were untimely to forestall the operation of the new contract as a bar.

   The Petitioner objects to the contract on the ground that its 3-year term is of unreasonable duration. On this question, the Board's policy has been to regard as reasonable a contract term in excess of 2 years, if such contracts are established as customary in the industry.' The sole evidence with respect to the custom in the retail meat-marketing industry was introduced by the Intervenor to show that it had, of relatively recent date, entered into several contracts with other companies providing for a 3-year term. We find this evidence insufficient to establish a custom in the industry.

   However, absent such a custom, the instant contract is nevertheless effective to bar a representation petition during the first 2 years of its existence.2 'See, e.g., Reed Roller Bit Company, 72 NLRB 927; General Motors Corporation, Detroit Transmission Division, 102 NLRB 1140.

   2See American Seating Company, 98 NLRB 800

   105 NLRB No. 138

   SUPREME SUNRISE FOOD EXCI IANGE, INC. 919

   The Petitioner contends further that the contract is defective on the ground that it contains certain clauses which are improper and discriminatory. The challenged clauses are considered below:

   Article 1, in which the Employer recognizes the Intervenor as exclusive bargaining agent for all the employees in question, provides in pertinent part that the Employer-agrees to meet only with the proper accredited officers and committees of the Union, on all grievances, complaints, disputes, and adjustments that may arise between the employer and the Union.

   The Petitioner argues that this clause deprives individuals of the right, under the proviso to Section 9 (a) of the Act, 'to present grievances to their employer, and to have such grievances adjusted, without the intervention of the bargaining representative....' It does not appear to us that the clause on its face purports to abridge in any way this right of employees under the Act. The clause, as we read it, has reference, among other things, only to those grievances 'that may arise between the employer and the Union.' Article 5 provides in part:

   All employees shall be paid for the following...