Belle-Moc, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 3, 1949

81 N.L.R.B. 6 (N.L.R.B. 1949)

In the Matter of BELLE-Moo, INC. and UNITED SHOE WORRIERS OF
AMERICA, C. I. O.
Case No. 1-RC-514.-Decided January 3, 19.19
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before a hearing
officer of the National Labor Relations Board. 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-man panel consisting of the undersigned Board
Members.*
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 Petitioner and Lewiston and Auburn Shoe Workers Protec-
tive Association, herein called the Intervenor, are labor organizations
which claim to represent employees of the Employer.
3. The Employer refuses to recognize the Petitioner as the exclu-
sive bargaining representative of employees of the Employer until
the Petitioner has been certified by the Board in an appropriate
unit.
The Employer and the Intervenor contend that a contract currently
in effect between them constitutes a bar to this proceeding. On Aug-
ust 21, 1947, the Employer and the Intervenor executed a collective
bargaining contract to remain in effect until August 21, 1948, and
subject to automatic renewal for 1-year periods thereafter, in the
absence of notice to change or terminate given by either party 60 days
prior to any anniversary date. On June 18, the Petitioner mailed to
the Employer a letter claiming representation among these employees.
This letter was received by the Employer on June 21, 1948, the day
before the automatic renewal date of the 1947 contract. On June 29,
1948, the Petitioner filed its petition herein.
'Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Gray.
81 N. L. R. B., No. 2.
6
BELLE-MOC, INC. 7
The Employer and the Intervenor urge that their contract was auto-
matically renewed on June 22, 1948, and, under the General Elec-
tric X-Ray 1 doctrine constitutes a bar to the petition filed on June 29,
1948, because the petition was not filed within 10 days after the Peti-
tioner first asserted its claim of representation and the automatic re-
newal date of the contract occurred before the petition was filed. We
find no merit in this contention. Although the Petitioner mailed its
claim on June 18, 1948, the claim was not received by the Employer
until June 21, 1948. The date of receipt of notice of a claim to repre-
sentation rather than the date of mailing such notice is controlling.2
Under these circumstances, the rule established in the General Elec-
tric X-Ray case is fully satisfied in the instant case.3
We find that a 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.
4. The appropriate unit:
The Petitioner seeks a unit composed of production and mainte-
nance employees employed in the Employer's shoe manufacturing
plant at Lewiston, Mairle, excluding office and clerical employees,
executives, and all supervisors. The Employer and the Intervenor
contend that the unit should not be limited to the employees of the
Employer, but should include production and maintenance employees
of all the employers, including this Employer, who are members of
Auburn Shoe Manufacturers Association.
Auburn Shoe Manufacturers Association is an informal association
of all shoe manufacturers in the twin cities of Lewiston and Auburn,
Maine. The Association does not have a constitution, bylaws, or ar-
ticles of association. Its expenses are paid by monthly assessments
against its members in proportion to the number of employees on their
respective pay rolls. For a number of years, the association , through
a labor committee of 6' or 7 members, has orally negotiated with the
Intervenor with respect to working conditions for employees of the
Association members. No written agreements on an Association-
wide basis have been executed. Members of the Association are not
bound to sign written agreements with the Intervenor. Some mem-
1 Matter of General Electric X-Ray, 67 N. L. R. B. 997.
2 Matter of Northwestern Publishing Co., 71 N. L. R. B. 167.
8 Admitting that the Petitioner's letter claiming representation arrived at the plant on
June 21, the Employer urges that the vice president in charge of labor relations did not
read it until June 22, 1948, the automatic renewal date. The Employer contends, under the
principle established in Matter of Carborundum Co., 78 N. L. R. B. 91, that the claim was
too late and that the contract constitutes a bar to any election at this time. We do not
agree. In the Carborundum case the facts were substantially different. In that case the
claim was restricted to the "attention of Plant Manager Parse." Parse, however, did not
receive the letter until the day following its receipt by the Employer, when the contract
had renewed itself. In the instant case the claim was addressed to the Employer, and the
Carborundum rule does not apply.
8 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
hers of the Association, however, execute uniform individual written
contracts, embodying the terms orally negotiated by the Association
and the Intervenor. Of the 17 Association members, including the
Employer, 12 signed written contracts; the other 5 members merely
adopt as a labor policy the agreed terms.
The record in the instant case, and several earlier decisions, disclose
that, although the Association has been in existence for approximately
50 years, neither the Intervenor nor the Association (nor any of its
individual members) has heretofore urged an Association-wide unit
in the several representation cases involving present members of the
Association.4 Furthermore, in at least three recent cases,' certain
employer-members of the Association, with the consent and approval
of the Intervenor, formally agreed to units limited to employees of
individual Association members.
Under these circumstances, and in view of the entire record in the
case, we believe that the history of bargaining between the Associa-
tion members and the Intervenor does not render the proposed unit
inappropriate. We conclude, therefore, that production and mainte-
nance employees of the Employer's Lewiston plant may constitute
an appropriate unit.
We find that all production and maintenance employees at the Em-
ployer's Lewiston, Maine, shoe manufacturing plant, excluding office
and clerical employees, executives, and all supervisors, constitute a
unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining with the Employer , an election by secret
ballot shall be conducted as early as possible , but not later than 30 days
from the date of this Direction, under the direction and supervision
of the Regional Director for the Region in which this case was heard,
and subject to Sections 203.61 and 203.62 of National Labor Relations
Board Rules and Regulations-Series 5, as amended, among the em-
ployees in the unit found appropriate in paragraph numbered 4, above,
who were employed during the pay-roll period immediately preceding
* Matter of Charles Cushman Shoe Company, et al., 2 N. L. R B. 1015. In this case,
decided June 23, 1937, involving 12 employers, members of the Association , 5 of whom are
presently listed as members of the Association, the Board found that production and main-
tenance employees of each employer constituted a separate appropriate unit. This unit
determination was reaffirmed in 1939, in a complaint proceeding based on refusal to
bargain. Matter of Charles Cushman, at al., 15 N. L. R. B. 90.
5Matter of Knapp Brothers Shoe Company, Inc., Case No. 1-RC-482, issued September
30, 1948; Matter of Crest Shoe Company, Case No. 1-RC-5. Issued October 23, 1947;
Matter of Clark Shoe Company, Case No. 1-RC-298 , issued June 23, 1948.
BELLE-MOC, INC. 9
the date of this Direction of Election , including employees who did not
work during said pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation or
temporarily laid off , but excluding those employees who have since quit
or been discharged for cause and have not been rehired or reinstated
prior to the date of the election , and also excluding employees on strike
who are not entitled to reinstatement, to determine whether they desire
to be represented , for purposes of collective bargaining , by United
Shoe Workers of America, C. 1. 0., or by Lewiston and Auburn Shoe
Workers Protective Association , or by neither.