Brown Shoe Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 6, 1947

71 N.L.R.B. 1344 (N.L.R.B. 1947)

In the Matter of BROWN SHOE COMPANY, INC., EMPLOYER and UNITED
SHOE WORKERS OF AMERICA , LOCAL No. 172 , CIO, PETITIONER
Case No. 14-R-1561-Decided Javuary 6,1947
Mr. H. F. Willhite, of St. Louis, Mo., for the Employer.
Messrs. Marvin L. Gunter and James M. Ross, of Cairo, Ill., and
Mr. Dave Wilson, of St. Louis, Mo., for the Petitioner.
Mr. Henry W. de Kormian, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
STATEMENT OF TILE C \ SE
Upon a petition duly filed, the National Labor Relations Board
on October 15, 1946, conducted a prehearing election among employees
of the Employer in the alleged appropriate unit, to determine whether
they desired to be represented by the Petitioner, or by District 50,
United Mine Workers of America, AFL, herein called the Mine Work-
ers, for the purposes of collective bargaining, or by neither..
At the close of the election a Tally of* Ballots was furnished the
parties. The Tally shows that there were approximately 127 eligible
voters, of whom 90 cast valid ballots, 62 of which were for the Peti-
tioner and 28 for the Mine Workers ; there were 8 challenged ballots.
Thereafter, hearing in the case was held at St. Louis, Missouri, on
November 18, 1946, before Charles P. Hackler, hearing officer.' The
rulings of the hearing officer made at the hearing are free from preju-
dicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations
Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
Brown Shoe Company, Inc., is a New York corporation engaged
in the manufacture of shoes at plants located in various States of the
1 Although duly served with notice, the Mine Workers did not appear at the hearing.
71 N. L. R.B No. 215.
1344
BROWN SHOE COMPANY, INC. 1345
United States. The Employer's plant in Cairo, Illinois, is solely in-
volved in this proceeding. In the course of its business the Employer
purchases raw materials, a substantial amount of which is shipped to
the Employer from points outside the State of Illinois. A substantial
amount of the Employer's finished products is shipped to points out-
side the State of Illinois.
The Employer admits and we find that it is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Petitioner is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress
of Industrial Organizations, claiming to represent employees of the
Employer.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Employer refuses to recognize the Petitioner as the exclusive
bargaining representative of employees of the Employer until the
Petitioner has been certified by the Board in an appropriate unit.
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning
the representation of employees of the Employer, within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (0) and (7) of the Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
In accordance with the stipulation of the Petitioner and the Em-
ployer, we find that all production and maintenance employees of the
Employer's Cairo, Illinois, plant, including watchmen, commissary
clerks and stockroom clerks, but excluding office and clerical employees,
the first-aid attendant, the chief engineer, the chief commissary clerk,
the chief stockroom clerk, foremen, assistant foremen, instructors,
and all other supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote,
discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of em-
ployees, or effectively recommend such action, constitute a unit appro-
priate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning
of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
The Employer urges that the prehearing election was improper
and that no certification should issue, because it proposes to increase
its complement of employees from approximately 127 production and
maintenance employees in the appropriate unit at the time of the
prehearing election to approximately 300 employees when it reaches
the limit of its anticipated expansion.
The record indicates that the Employer's contemplated expansion is
contingent upon the availability of machinery and raw materials. It
1346 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
is likewise rendered uncertain by the increasing manufacturing costs
occasioned by the rising prices of hides and leather following the de-
control of prices, and by the possibility of consumer reaction to the
higher prices of the Employer's finished products. Furthermore, the
Employer is now manufacturing a new type of shoe which it has never
produced in the past. The Employer admits that its expansion to date
has not been as rapid as it had originally anticipated. From the time
of the prehearing election to the date of the hearing, the Employer
hired approximately 16 new employees.
Since the Employer's future expansion is somewhat indefinite, and
its extent uncertain, and since it is clear that the voting unit in which
the election was held can be regarded as a representative group, we are
of the opinion that the prehearing election of October 15, 1946, was
proper. We therefore perceive no valid reason why a certification
should not now issue.2
However, in view of the possible expansion of the appropriate unit
to more than twice its size at the time of the prehearing election, we
shall entertain a new petition for, invos