Crompton Company, Inc., 417 (1982)

CROMPTON COMPANY, INC Crompton Company, Inc. and Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers Union, AFL-CIO, CLC,

Petitioner. Case 5-RC-11713

February 22, 1982 DECISION ON REVIEW

Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a hearing was held before a hearing officer. On January 22, 1982, the Acting Regional Director for Region 5 issued a Decision and Direction of Election in the above-entitled proceeding in which he found appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining a unit consisting of all production and maintenance employees employed by the Employer at its Waynesboro, Virginia, Shenandoah plant, but excluding all other employees, including office clericals, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act. In so doing, the Acting Regional Director rejected the arguments by the Employer and Fiber Workers Associated, Inc. (the Intervenor), which, inter alia, contended that the petition filed by the Petitioner was barred by an agreement entered into by the Employer and the Intervenor extending the collective-bargaining agreement between the parties.

Thereafter, in accordance with Section 102.67 of the National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, the Employer and the Intervenor each filed a timely request for review of the Acting Regional Director's Decision and Direction of Election. Both parties contend, inter alia, that the Acting Regional Director erred in concluding that the extension agreement entered into by the Employer and the Intervenor did not bar the petition filed by the Petitioner.' Pursuant to Section 102.67(g) of the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, the Board grants review of the Acting Regional Director's Decision and Direction of Election limited only to the issue of whether the Acting Regional Director erred in concluding that the extension agreement entered into by the Employer and the Intervenor did not bar the petition filed by the Petitioner.

I In their requests for review, the Employer and the Intervenor also contend that the Acting Regional Director erred in rejecting their argument that a new collective-bargaining agreement was entered into by the parties on December 2, 1981, prior to the date of the petition, and thus bars the petition The Acting Regional Director found that, although the Employer and the Intervenor reached final agreement on all the terms and conditions of the new collectie-bargaining agreement on December 2, 1981. the new contract was not formally executed by the parties until December I1. 1981 By application of the Board's swell-established rule that a written agreement must be signed by both parties in order to bar an election, the Acting Regional Director concluded that the petition was not barred Appa/uchian Shalt Products Ca.. 121 NLRH 116) (1958) The requests for revies by the Employer and the Intervenor on this issue are hereby denied as the); raised no substantial issue warranting resiesv 260 NLRB No. 69

The material facts are not in dispute. The Intervenor was first certified by the Board in 1966 to represent the same bargaining unit as that petitioned for. After receiving the majority of the valid votes in an election involving another union, the Intervenor was again certified by the Board in 1969. The Employer and the Intervenor have signed a series of...