Brown Shoe Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 15, 1945

60 N.L.R.B. 620 (N.L.R.B. 1945)

In the Matter of BROWN SHOE COMPANY, INC. and UNITED SHOE.
WORKERS OF AMERIC'A,.CIO
Case No. 14-R-1089.-Decided February 15, 1945
Mr. H. J . Willhite , of St. Louis , Mo., and Mr. H. B . Anderson, of
Murphysboro , Ill., for the Company.
Messrs. Julius Crane , and Elmer A . Jones, of St . Louis, Mo., for the.
CIO.
Mr. M. J. Hanagan, of West Frankfort, Ill., -Mr. Roy White, of
Herrin, Ill., and Mr. Smithie Weathers, of Murphysboro, Ill., for-
District 50.
Mr. Harold M. Humphreys, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a petition duly filed by United Shoe Workers of America,.
CIO, herein called the CIO, alleging that a question affecting com-
merce had arisen concerning the representation of employees of Brown
Shoe Company, Inc., Murphysboro, Illinois, herein called the Com-
pany, the National Labor Relations Board provided for an appropri-
ate hearing upon due notice before Joseph Lepie, Trial Examiner.
Said hearing was held at Murphysboro, Illinois, on January 4, 1945.
The Company, the CIO, and Shoe Workers District 50, United Mine
Workers of America, herein called District 50,1 appeared and par-
ticipated, and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine
and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on
the issues. The Trial Examiner's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. All parties were
afforded an opportunity to file briefs with the Board.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Brown Shoe Company, Inc., is a New York corporation, operating
plants in the. States of Missouri, Illinois, Indiana, and Tennessee.,
1 Local 12652 of District 50 is more particularly concerned herein.
60 N. L. R. B., No. 114.,
620
BROWN SHOE COMPANY, INC. 621
'This proceeding involves the Company's plant at Murphysboro, Illi-
nois, where it is engaged in the manufacture of shoes. During 1943 the
total value of raw materials used at the Murphysboro plant was in
excess of $1,000,000, of which more than 50 percent was shipped from
points outside the State of Illinois. For the same period the total
value of the products finished at the Murphysboro plant was in excess
of $1,000,000, of which more than 50 percent was shipped to points
outside the State of Illinois.
The Company admits that it is engaged in commerce within the
.meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
United Shoe Workers of America, affiliated with the Congress of
Industrial Organizations, and Shoe Workers of District 50, United
Mine Workers of America, are labor organizations admitting to mem-
bership employees of the Company.
_III. THE ALLEGED QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
On August 11, 1944, the CIO requested recognition from the Com-
pany as the bargaining representative of employees at its Murphys
boro plant. Five days later the Company informed the CIO that it
would not accord such recognition in the absence of a Board certifi-
cation.
District 50 was certified by the Board on June 4, 1943, as the exclu-
sive collective bargaining agent, of Murphysboro plant employees.
On October 23, 1943, the Company and District 50 executed a written
1-year collective bargaining agreement which did not, however, em-
brace certain terms and conditions of employment concerning which
the parties were in dispute. These matters consisted of job classifica-
ttons, vacations, details relating to a union shop, check-off of dues and
initiation fees, and various particulars regarding wages. It was
agreed by the Company and District 50 to submit their differences to
the War Labor Board for settlement. A hearing was held before a
Regional War Labor Board on March 1, 1944, and additional pro-
ceedings followed. As of therdate of the hearing in the instant case,
the Regional War Labor Board has not issued any directive dispos-
ing of the matters before it. In the interim, because of the CIO's
claim, the Company notified District 50 on September 22, 1944, that
it desired to terminate the agreement of October 23, 1943.1
Upon this state of facts District 50 contends, and we agree, that the
petition should be dismissed. Within the first year of its certification
2 The agreement provided for automatic renewal for yearly periods in the absence of
written notice of a desire to change or terminate it given by either party at least 30 days
prior to any anniversary date.
622 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
by the Board District 50 resorted to the processes of the War Labor
Board to resolve the substantial issues pertaining to collective bar-
gaining which had arisen between it and the Company and to com-
plete its initial bargaining program. As we held in the Allis-Chal-
3 -mers case:
. . . From the standpoint of stable labor, relations, it is un-
desirable to penalize a certified bargaining representative for
unavoidable delays consequent upon its voluntary acceptance of
orderly procedures established by governmental authority for the
adjustment of difference with an employer. To charge a certified
bargaining representative with such delays would have the effect
of discouraging resort to such orderly procedures and promoting
industrial strife and unrest which the Act was designed to avoid.
Accordingly, we find that no question affecting commerce exists at
this time concerning the representation of employees of the Company.
We shall dismiss the CIO's petition'
ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and the entire rec-
ord in the case, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders
that the petition for investigation and certification of representatives
of employees of Brown Shoe Company, Inc., Murphysboro, Illinois,
filed by United Shoe Workers of America, CIO, be, and it hereby is,
dismissed.
8 Matter of Allis-Chalmers Manufacturing Company, 50 N. L. R. B 306.
4 See Matter of American-Marsh Pumps, Inc ., 59 N. L. R. B. 1084.