Craddock-Terry Shoe Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 2, 1942

44 N.L.R.B. 738 (N.L.R.B. 1942)

In the Matter Of CRADDOCK-TERRY SHOE CORPORATION and UNITED SHOE
WORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL No. 90, AFFILIATED WITH THE CONGRESS
OF INDUSTRIAL-ORGANIZATIONS
Case No. R-4251.-Decided October 0, 1942
Jurisdiction : shoe manufacturing industry.
Investigation and Certification of Representatives : existence of question : con-
flicting claims of rival representatives ; employees whose inclusion in unit was
dependent upon whether or not they had been covered by prior bargaining
agreement , permitted to vote subject to challenge ; election necessary.
Unit Appropriate for Collective Bargaining : unit comprising production em-
ployees, exclusive of maintenance employees , at Company's three plants, held
appropriate in view of history of collective bargaining.
Mr. Jacob Blum, for the Board.
Brooks, McLendoni d Holderness, by Mr. T. H. Brooks, of Greens-
boro , N. C., for the Company.
'Mr. William E. Thornton and Mr. Wayne D. Spettigue, of Lynch-
burg, Va., for the United.
Mr. Joseph A. Pathway, by,Mr. Robert A. Wilson, of Washington,
D. C., for Local 441.
Mr. Louis A. Pontello, Jr., of counsel to the Board..
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon petition duly filed by United Shoe Workers of America, Local
No.'90,'affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, herein
called the`tUnited, alleging that a question affecting commerce has
arisen"concerning the representation of employees of Craddock-Terry
Slioe 'Corporation, Lynchburg, Virginia, herein called the Company,
the 'tNational t Labor Relations Board provided for an appropriate
hearin{g=upon due notice before Henry J. Kent, Trial Examiner. Said
hearing-was held-'at Lynchburg, Virginia, on September, 4, 1942. The
Company, the United, and Boot and Shoe Workers Union, Local 441,
affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, herein -called Local
441, appeared, participated, and were afforded full' opportunity to be
heard, to examine and cross- examine witnesses , and to introduce evi-
44 N. L . R. B., No. 138 '
738
CRADDOCK-TERRY SHOE CORPORATION 739
dente bearing on the issues. The Trial Examiner 's rulings made at
the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Craddock-Terry Shoe Corporation is a Virginia corporation engaged
in the manufacture and sale of shoes. The Company operates three
factories in Lynchburg, Virginia, namely, the Southland, Fort Hill,
and West End plants. During 1941, the raw materials used by the
Company at its three factories were in excess of $10,000,000 in value, of
which approximately 90 percent was shipped to Lynchburg from
points outside the State of Virginia. During the same period the
products manufactured by the Company exceeded $13,000,000 in value.
About 90 percent of these products was shipped to points outside the
State of Virginia.
The Company admits it is engaged in commerce within the meaning
of the National Labor Relations Act.
H. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
United Shoe Workers of America, Local No. 90, is a labor organiza-
tion affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, admitting.
to membership employees of the Company.
Boot and Shoe Workers Union. Local 441, is a labor organization
affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, admitting to member-
ship employes of the Company.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
In 1933, Local 441 was certified as the collective bargaining agent for
the employees at the Company's plants after it had won an election held
under the N. R. A. The Company recognized Local 441 as the bargain-
ing agent without a written agreement until August 16, 1941, when the
Company, and Local 441 entered into a contract, effective from its date
through September 1, 1942, and from year to year thereafter unless
terminated by 90 days' written notice prior to its date of expiration, or
any anniversary thereof. The contract did not contain a recognition
clause or a clause describing the employees it purported to cover. Testi-
mony of representatives of the Company and Local 441 indicates, how-
ever, that the parties intended the agreement to cover the Company's
production employees. On May 14, 1942, Local 441 notified the Com-
pany of its desire to change the agreement. On July 16, 1942,, the
United notified the Company by letter that it represented a majority
of the employees of the Company and requested recognition as the bar-
740 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL, LABOR REI:ATIONS, BOARD
gaining agent for the employees. Neither, the Company nor Local 441
contended that the agreement constitutes a bar to a^ detei'mination
of representatives, and at the hearing Local 441 stipulated that there
was a question concerning representation existing at the time of the
hearing.
A statement of the Acting Regional Director introduced- into evi-
dence.shows that the United represents a substantial number of em-
ployees in the unit it alleged as appropriate.) At the hearing, the
Company and the United stipulated that Local 441 has a substantial'
interest in the proceeding.
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning the
representation of employees of the Company, withili the meaning of
Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The United contends that all production and maintenance employees
of the Company at its, three factories in Lynchburg, Virginia, including
porters, truck drivers, elevator operators, watchmen, maintenance men
who clean up on the outside of the plants, and mechanics, but excluding
instructors, supervisory and clerical employees, timekeepers, and time-
study men, constitute an appropriate unit. It is the contention of
Local 441 that the unit should consist solely of production employees,
including instructors, packers, skivers, and inspectors, but excluding
all maintenance employees, watchmen, and truck drivers. The Com-
pany takes no position as to the-appropriate unit.
As set forth in Section III, above, in 1933, Local 441 was certified as
the collective bargaining agent for the'employees of the Company at
its three plants. The record indicates that from 1933 to 1941, Local,
441 was recognized by the Company as the bargaining agent for pro-
duction employees. Although the written agreement of August 16,
1941, did not contain a clause- describing the employees it purported.
to cover, the record indicates that the parties intended that the agree-
ment cover only production employees. In view of this past bargaining
history it is our opinion that the appropriate unit should be composed
of all production employees who were actually covered by the contract
between Local 441 and the Company
' We find that all production employees of the Company at its three
plants,2 excluding all maintenance employees, janitors, truck drivers,
r The Acting Regional Director reported that the United presented 800 membership
apphcatiori cards. Representatives of the United made signed affidavits to the effect that
all of the cards had been signed since May 1, 1942 All signatures on tthe cards appeared
to be genuine original signatures ; 746 of the signatures are the names of persons whose
names are on-the Company's pay roll of July 25, 1942. A iepiesentative of the Company
indicated, at the hearing, that said pay roll* contained approximately 2490 production
and maintenance employees. -
'2 There'was some 1ispute at the hearing concerning instructors employed by-the Com-
pany in the stitching rooms These instructors teach the new operators how to operate
CRADDOCK-TERRY SHOE CORPORATION 741
elevator operators, and mechanics, constitute a unit appropriate for
the purposes of collective bargaining, -within the meaning of Section
9 (b) of the Act.
V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
We shall direct , that the question concerning representation which
has arisen be resolved by an election by secret ballot among the em-
ployees ,in the appropriate unit 3 who were employed during the pay-
roll period immediately preceding the date of the Direction of Elec-
tion ' herein, subject to the limitations and,additions set forth in the
Direction.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National Labor
Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations
Act, and pursuant to Article III, Section 8, of National Labor Rela-
tions Board Rules and Regulations-Series 2, as amended, it is hereby
DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation to ascertain representa-
tives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Craddock-Terry
Shoe Corporation, Lynchburg, Virginia, an election by secret ballot
shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later than thirty (30)
days from the date of this Direction under the direction and super-
vision of the Regional Director for the Fifth Region, acting in this
matter as agent for the National Labor. Relations Board and subject
to Article III, Section 9, of said Rules and Regulations, among the
employees in the unit found appropriate in Section IV, above, who
were employed during the pay-roll period immediately preceding,the
date of this Direction of Election, including employees who did not
work during such pay-roll period because they were ill or, on vaca-
tion or in the,active military service or training of the United States,
or temporarily laid'off, but excluding employees who have since quit
or been discharged for cause, to determine whether they desire to
be represented by United Shoe Workers of America, Local No. 90,
affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, or by Boot
and Shoe Workers Union, Local 441, affiliated with the American
Federation of Labor, for the purposes of collective bargaining, or by
neither. -
MR. WM. M. LEISERSON, took no part in the consideration of the
above Decision and Direction of Election.
the machines and they serve as leaders in the work , but they do not have any supervisory
duties we shall Include them in the unit However , their status in the unit and their
eligibility to vote in the election shall be subject to challenge. It is our intention to in-
clude them and other employees as skivers, packers, and, inspectors , in the unit only if
they were actually covered under the agreement between Local 441 and the Company
3 See footnote 2, supra