Geo. Knight & Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 18, 1947

74 N.L.R.B. 560 (N.L.R.B. 1947)

In the Matter of GEORGE KNIGHT, GEORGE R. KNIGHT, CHESTERTON S.
KNIGHT, F. STUART KNIGHT AND CARLTON KNIGIIT, PARTNERS,
D/B/A GEO. KNIGHT & Co., EMPLOYER and INTERNATIONAL BROTHER-
HOOD OF FIREMEN AND OILERS, POWERHOUSE EMPLOYEES , OPERATORS
AND MAINTENANCE MEN, A. F. or L ., PETITIONER
Case No. 1-R-3 706.Decided July 18, 1947
Mr. Edmund J. Campbell , of Brockton , Mass., for the Employer.
Mr. Joseph A. Picone, of Middleboro , Mass., for the Petitioner.
Mr. Harold F. Reardon , of Boston , Mass., for the Intervenor.
Mr. Lloyd S. Greenidge , of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at Brock-
ton, Massachusetts, on May 13, 1947, before Sam G. Zack, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations
Board makes'the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE E_IIPLOYER
George Knight, George R. Knight, Chesterton S. Knight, F. Stuaft
Knight, and Carlton Knight, doing business as Geo. Knight & Co.,
is a partnership engaged in the manufacture of shoe machinery at its
plant in Brockton, Massachusetts. During the past 12 months, the
Employer purchased raw materials valued in excess of $50,000, of
which approximately 95 percent was obtained outside the Common-
wealth of Massachusetts. During the same period, the Employer
produced finished products in excess of $350,000, of which approxi-
mately 35 percent was shipped outside the Commonwealth.
The Employer admits and we find that it is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
74 N L. R B, No. 107.
560
GEO. KNIGHT & CO.
U. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
561
The Petitioner is a labor organization affiliated with the American
Federation of Labor, claiming to represent employees of the Employer.
International Association of Machinists, herein called the Intervenor,
is a labor organization, claiming to represent employees of the Em-
ployer.
The Shop Committee 1 is a labor organization having represented
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. ' It bases this
refusal upon the existence of a collective bargaining agreement be-
tween it and the Shop Committee which agreement it also asserts as
a bar to a present determination of representatives.
On August 2, 1946, the Employer and the Shop Committee entered
into a collective bargaining agreement to be effective until April 29,
1947. This contract contained no automatic renewal clause. On
March 31, 1947, the parties executed a new agreement effective im-
mediately and terminable March 31, 1948. The petition herein was
filed on April 1, 1947. The March 31, 1947, agreement was therefore
executed before the termination date of the August 2, 1946, agreement,
and consequently was a premature extension of the latter. Inasmuch
as the petition was filed with the Board before the expiration date of
the August 2, 1946, agreement, we are of the opinion that the March
31, 1947, agreement cannot operate as a bar to a current determination
of representatives.2
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 (6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
We find, in substantial accord with the agreement of the parties, that
all production and maintenance employees at the Employer's plant in
Brockton, Massachusetts, excluding office and clerical employees, ex-
ecutives, and all other supervisory employees, constitute a unit ap-
propriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning
of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
' The Shop Committee made no appearance at the hearing and evinced no interest in
the proceeding
2Matter of Murray Leather Company, 73 N L R B 892; Matter of Houston Packing
Company, 71 N L R B 1232, Matter of Worth Hardware Co, Inc, 71 N. L R. B 684
562 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
As part of the investigation to ascertin representatives for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining with George Knight, George R. Knight,
Chesterton S. Knight, F. Stuart Knight and Carlton Knight, partners
d/b/a Geo. Knight & Co., Brockton, Massachusetts, 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 direc-
tion and supervision of the Regional Director for the First Region,
acting in this matter as agent for the National Labor Relations Board,
and subject to Sections 203.55 and 203.56, of National Labor Relations
Board Rules and Regulations-Series 4, among the employees in the
unit found appropriate in Section IV, above, who were employed dur-
ing the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of this Direc-
tion, 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 de-
termine whether they desire to be represented by the International
Brotherhood of Firemen and Oilers, Powerhouse Employees, Opera-
tors and Maintenance Men, A. F. of L., or by International Association
of Machinists, for the purposes of collective bargaining, or by neither.
CHAIRMAN HERZOG took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Direction of Election.
8 Any participant in the election herein may, upon its prompt request to and approval
thereof by the Regional Director, have its name removed from the ballot.