Craddock-Terry Shoe Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 4, 1948

76 N.L.R.B. 842 (N.L.R.B. 1948)

In the Matter Of CRADDOCK-TERRY SHOE CORPORATION and UNITED
SHOE WORKERS OF AMERICA, C. I. O.
Case No. 5-C-2087
ORDER DENYING MOTION
March 4, 1948
On May 29, 1947, the National Labor Relations Board issued a
Decision and Order in this proceeding, finding that the Respondent,
Craddock-Terry Shoe Corporation, had refused to bargain collectively
with the Union, United Shoe Workers of America, C. I. 0., within
the meaning of Section 8 (5) of the National Labor Relations Act,
and ordering the Respondent to cease and desist from its unfair labor
practices and to bargain collectively with the Union upon request.
By motion and supplemental motion dated February 24 and March 3,
1948, respectively, the Respondent has requested the Board (1) to
reopen the record; (2) to enlarge the record; (3) to issue subpoenas;
and (4) to set aside or modify its Decision and Order of May 29, 1947.
The Union has filed a reply opposing the Respondent's initial motion
and requesting that the relief demanded be denied in all particulars. .
The Respondent contends that certain officers of the Congress of
Industrial Organizations, with which the Union is affiliated, have
failed to file non-Communist affidavits required by Section 9 (h) of the
Labor-Management Relations Act. It requests that, in order that a
judicial determination may be had concerning the necessity for the
filing of such affidavits as a condition precedent to the processing of
the Union's case, the Board should reopen the record and, on its own
motion, introduce a list of the officers of the C. I. O. who have filed
such affidavits, and a list of those who have not so complied. The
Board finds no merit in this proposal. The reasons why the Board
considers the filing of such affidavits by officers of the Congress of
Industrial Organizations immaterial in a case such as this are fully
stated in the opinions issued in the Matter of Northern Virginia
Broadcasters, Inc., 75 N. L. R. B. 11, decided on October 7, 1947.
The Respondent further contends that the persons who were the
officers of the Union prior to January 20, 1948, were unable or un-
willing to execute the affidavits required by Section 9 (h) and that
76 N. L. R. B., No. 120.
842
CRADDOCK-TERRY SHOE CORPORATION 843
as a consequence, on or about that date, they conducted a referendum
among the members of the Union on a proposed change in its con-
stitution so as to provide for only two national officers, who alone
thereafter filed the required affidavits, although other former officers
continued in de facto status. The Respondent alleges that this refer-
endum was undertaken with the intent of circumventing the provisions
of Section 9 (h). It urges that the Board reopen the record for the
purpose of receiving evidence to this effect, which it claims will show
that the Union is not in compliance.
The contentions made by the respondent illustrate the possibility
under existing law that unions, by abolishing offices under their con-
stitutions but assigning identical duties to officials who shall no longer
be denominated as "officers," may frustrate the Congressional intent
to drive Communists from positions of leadership in the labor move-
ment. As the Board reads the statute, however, these considerations
cannot properly deter it from processing a case when the statutory
requirements have been met.
The provisions of Section 9 (h) require only that there shall be on
file with the Board affidavits executed by each officer. The Board
additionally requires an affidavit identifying the officers of the labor
organization involved (Section 203.13 (b) (1), National Labor Rela-
tions Board Rules and Regulations, Series 5). In the instant case
there is on file an affidavit identifying the officers of the Union, and
non-Communist affidavits signed by each officer so identified. It is not
the purpose of the statute to require the Board to investigate the au-
thenticity or truth of the affidavits which have been filed. Persons
desiring to establish falsification or fraud have recourse to the De-
partment of Justice for a prosecution under Section 35 (a) of the
Criminal Code. The evidence sought to be adduced under this allega-
tion is accordingly immaterial.
The Respondent further asserts that the Union has reached an agree-
ment with the International Fur and Leather Workers Union, a non-
complying labor organization, for joint organizational drives in var-
ious plants including those of the Respondent. The Union denies this
allegation. The Board finds it to be immaterial.
Finally, the Respondent asserts that in January and February 1948
the Union, in an effort to reach agreement with the Respondent, has
in substance abandoned the bargaining unit comprising the Respond-
ent's three Lynchburg plants, for which the Union has hitherto been
certified and which is the subject of the Board's order to bargain
collectively. Examination of the exhibits attached to the Respond-
ent's motion reveals that the Union has, in fact, attempted to reach
agreement with the Company for recognition upon the basis of a bar-
844 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
gaining unit broader than that certified by the Board, and has made
such agreement a condition of requesting dismissal of the subject
proceeding. It appears, however, that no agreement was reached.
Should the Union adhere to its insistence on bargaining for a broader
unit, nothing in the Board's outstanding order would inhibit the Re-
spondent's refusal. The Board does not, however, regard the Union's
past action as abandonment of the unit established by the Board, nor
does the Union's request for a broader unit render the prosecution of
this proceeding in the public interest moot or academic, as contended
by the Respondent.
For the foregoing reasons the Respondent's motion is denied.
Dated at Washington, D. C., March 4, 1948.
By order of the Board :
FRANK M. KLEILER,
Executive Secretary.