Ewing-Thomas Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 20, 1946

65 N.L.R.B. 1270 (N.L.R.B. 1946)

In the Matter of EWING-THOMAS CORPORATION and DISTRICT 50,
UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA
Case No. 4-R-1826.-Decided February 20, 1946
Mr. Ralph S. Croskey, of Philadelphia, Pa., and Mr. James L. Ran-
kin, of Chester, Pa., for the Company.
Mr. J. P. Hizney and Mrs. Anna Fremont, of Chester, Pa., for the
UMW.
Mr. Benjamin Norwitch, of Clifton Heights, Pa., and Mr. Samuel
Basmajian, of Philadelphia, Pa., for the CIO.
Mr. Sidney Grossman, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION'
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a petition duly filed by District 50, United Mine Workers of
America, herein called the UMW, alleging that a question affecting
commerce had arisen concerning the representation of employees of
Ewing-Thomas Corporation, Chester, Pennsylvania, herein called the
Company, the National Labor Relations Board provided for an appro-
priate hearing upon due notice before Herman Lazarus, Trial Exam-
iner . The hearing was held at Chester, Pennsylvania, on August 28,
1945. The Company, the UMW, and the Textile Workers Union of
America, C. I. 0., herein called the CIO, appeared and participated.
All parties 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 opportunity to file briefs with the Board.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Ewing-Thomas Corporation, a Pennsylvania corporation, with
offices and place of business in Chester, Pennsylvania, is engaged in
the mercerizing and sale of cotton yarns. During the past year, the
65 N. L R. B., No. 213.
1270
EWING-THOMAS CORPORATION 1271
Company's purchases of gray yarn were in excess of $100,000 in value,
all of which was secured from sources outside the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania. During the same period, the products sold by the
Company were in excess of $100,000 in value, of which approximately
70 percent was shipped to points outside the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania.
The Company admits that it is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
District 50, United Mine Workers of America, is a labor organiza-
tion, admitting to membership employees of the Company.
Textile Workers Union of America is a labor organization, affiliated
member-with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, admitting to member-
ship employees of the Company.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Company refused to accord the UMW recognition as the ex-
clusive bargaining representative of its employees for the alleged
reasons that the UMW does not represent a majority of the employees,
and that an existing agreement with its employees, hereinafter dis-
cussed, precludes a present determination of representatives.
An election was held under Board auspices in May 1944, which the
CIO, the sole participating union therein, lost.' Shortly thereafter,
the Company called a meeting of its employees and suggested that
they might, if they so desired, conduct their negotiations with the Com-
pany through a committee. The employees thereupon selected a com-
mittee composed of representatives of each department. Although
the Company thereafter met with the committee as a whole, negotia-
tions also were conducted with the individual representatives of each
department because of departmental wage differences. On-June 22,
1944, a majority of the employees executed an agreement, subject to
the approval of the War Labor Board as to certain provisions. Ap-
proval of the War Labor Board was finally secured on about May 1,
1945. Following meetings held with its employees, the Company
prepared a new agreement and distributed copies thereof through its
foremen to the individual employees for their signatures. On May 7,
1945, 84 employees, then comprising a majority, affixed their individual
signatures to the agreement which, according to its terms, continues to
June 30, 1946, and yearly thereafter until terminated by either party
by 30 days' notice.2
' See Matter of The Ewing-Thomas Corporation , 56 N. L . R. B. 23.
' The 1945 agreement, like that entered into in 1944 , contains wage and vacation pro-
visions, a general clause with respect to the equitable assignment and division of work.
1272 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The introductory paragraph of the agreement describes it as made
between the Company and "the employees of Ewing-Thomas Corpora-
tion, acting herein by those employees who sign one copy of this agree-
lnent." Of those who executed the agreement, 61 employees signed
individual copies and the balance signed other copies in groups of 2 or
more employees.3 Although the Company enlisted the aid of the com-
mittee in securing WLB approval before the consummation of the
existing agreement, the committee did not become a party thereto nor
does it appear to have otherwise participated in its administration.'
In view of the foregoing, we are of the opinion that the above-quoted
language in the opening paragraph of the agreement, when viewed in
conjunction with the circumstances attending its execution, does not
support the contention of the Company that this document represents
a collective bargaining agreement such as contemplated by the Act,
but that instead it constitutes the individual agreement of the em-
ployees who affixed their signatures thereto. Accordingly, we find
that the 1945 agreement does not operate as a bar to this proceeding.5
A statement of a Board agent, introduced into evidence at the hear-
ing, indicates that the UMW represents a substantial number of em-
ployees in the unit hereinafter found appropriate
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning
the representation of employees of the Company, within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
We find in substantial accord with an agreement of the parties that
all production and maintenance employees of the Company, including
watchmen, but excluding office and clerical employees, foremen, and
all or any other supervisory employees with authority to hire, pro-
enumerates certain managerial prerogatives , but contains no grievance procedure provision,
nor does it include other standard provisions usually made part of trade union agreements.
a
While the procedure employed in consummating the 1945 agreement was similar to that
adopted in 1944, it varied in that employees who executed the 1944 agreement affixed their
signatures to 1 of 8 or 10 copies distributed to the different departments
4 Although three employees who served on the committee testified , the committee , as such,
did not intervene in the hearing or otherwise participate herein, nor did the Company urge
that it be accorded a place on the ballot in any election the Board might order.
6 See J. 1. Case Co. v . N. L. R. B., 321 U. S. 332.
The Field Examiner reported that the UMW submitted 55 authorization cards and the
CIO submitted 33 authorization cards , all of which bore the names of persons appearing
on the Company 's pay roll of August 8, 1945, in an alleged appropriate unit consisting of
134 employees
The Company urges in its brief that, as revealed by the Field Examiner 's report, the
UMW does not represent a majority of employees as alleged in its petition . Such conten-
tion is without merit. Proof of majority status is not required to raise a question con-
cerning representation ; it is only necessary to establish to the satisfaction of the Board
that the petitioning union represents a substantial number of employees in the unit found
to be appropriate . See Matter of Petersen & Lytle, 60 N . L R. B. 1070; Matter of The
Ewing-Thomas Corporation, supra
EWING-THOMAS CORPORATION 1273
mote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status
of employees, or effectively recommend such action,' constitute a unit
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the mean-
ing 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 employees
in the appropriate unit who were employed during the pay-roll period
immediately preceding the date of the Direction of Election 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 9, of National Labor Rela-
tions Board Rules and Regulations-Series 3, as amended, it is hereby
DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation to ascertain representa-
tives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Ewing-Thomas
Corporation, Chester, Pennsylvania, 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 supervision
of the Regional Director for the Fourth Region, acting in this matter
as agent for the National Labor Relations Board, and subject to Article
III, Sections 10 and 11, of said Rules and Regulations, among em-
ployees in the unit found appropriate in Section IV, above, who were
employed during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date
of this Direction, including employees who did not work during said
pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation or temporarily
laid off, and including employees in the armed forces of the United
States who present themselves in person at the polls, 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,
to determine whether they desire to be represented by District 50,
United Mine Workers of America, or by Textile Workers Union of
America, C. I. 0., for the purposes of collective bargaining, or by
neither.
'Excluded from this category is Rhoda A . Groce, a floorlady , whom the parties agree,
and we find , does not occupy the status of a supervisory employee.