George F. Carleton & Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 31, 1943

54 N.L.R.B. 222 (N.L.R.B. 1943)

In the Matter of GEORGE F. CARLETON & COMPANY, INC. and BOOT AND
SHOE WORKERS' UNION (AFL)
In the Matter of KENT SHOE CORPORATION and BOOT AND SHOE WORKERS'
UNION (AFL)
In the Matter of HERBERT HOLTZ SHOE COMPANY, INC. and Boor AND
SHOE WORKERS' UNION (AFL)
In the Matter Of HAROLD SHOE CO., INC. and BOOT AND SHOE WORKERS'
UNION (AFL)
e
In the Matter of HARTMAN SHOE MANUFACTURING Co. and BOOT AND
SHOE WORKERS' UNION (AFL)
In the Matter of LAIRD- SCHOBER & Co., INC. and BOOT AND SHOE
WORKERS' UNION (AFL)
In the Matter Of STEIN-SULKIS SHOE Co. and BOOT AND SHOE WORKERS' ,
UNION (AFL)
In the Matter Of UNITY SHOEMAKERS CORP. and BOOT AND SHOE
WORKERS' UNION (AFL)
In the Matter of JEAN 'S INb.1 and BOOT AND SHOE WORKERS' UNION
(AFL)
In the Matter Of STEPHEN SHOE COMPANY 2 and BOOT AND SHOE
WORKERS' UNION (AFL)
Cases Nos. 1-R-1616 to 1-R-1623 inclusive, 1-R-1628 and 1-R-1629.-
Decided December 31, 1943.
Mr. Walter M. Espovich, of Haverhill, Mass.; for Holtz, Harold,
Hartman, Laird-Schober, Stein-Sulkis, Unity, Jean's, and Stephen.
Mr. Morton Rowe, of Haverhill, Mass., for Carleton.
Sugarman d Schneider, by Mr. Edward Schneider, of Boston , Mass.,
for Kent.
Mr. George Karelitz, of Haverhill, Mass., and Mr. Salvatore Feraci,
for the A. F. L.
Grant & Angoff, by Mr. Sidney S. Grant, of Boston, Mass.; and
Mr. Harry Sacher, of New York, N. Y., for the C. I. 0.
Mr. William Feldesman, of counsel to the Board.
1 The name of this Company is amended to read as written above pursuant to a stipula-
tion made on the record.
2 The name of this Company is amended to read as written above pursuant to a stipula-
tion made on the record.
54 N. L. R. B., No. 29. I
222
GEORGE F. CARLETON & COMPANY 223
DECISION
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon separate petitions duly, filed by Boot and Shoe Workers'
Union, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, herein called
the A. F. L., alleging that questions affecting commerce had arisen
concerning the representation of employees of George F. Carleton &
Company, Inc., herein called Carleton, Kent Shoe Corporation, herein
called Kent, Herbert Holtz Shoe Company, Inc., herein called Holtz,
Harold Shoe Co., Inc., herein called Harold, Hartman Shoe Manufac-
turing Co., herein called' Hartman, Laird-Schober & Co., Inc., herein
called Laird-Schober, Stein-Sulkis Shoe Co., herein called Stein-
Sulkis, Unity Shoemakers Corp., herein called Unity, Jean's Inc.,
herein called Jean's, and Stephen Shoe Company, herein called
Stephen, all of Haverhill, Massachusetts, and collectively referred to
as the Companies, the National Labor Relations Board provided for
appropriate hearings upon due notice before Robert E. Greene, Trial
Examiner. Separate hearings in the 10 cases were had at Haverhill,
Massachusetts, on November 19, 22, and 23, 1943. The Companies,
the A. F. L., and United Shoe Workers of America, affiliated with the
Congress of Industrial Organizations, herein called the C. I. 0.,
appeared, participated, and 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
hearings are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. All
parties were afforded an opportunity to file briefs with the Board.
Since the A. F. L. and C. I. O. have filed briefs which adequately
discuss the issues, the A. F. L.'s request for oral argument is denied.
For the purpose of decision the 10 cases are hereby consolidated.
Upon the entire records in the cases, the Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESSES OF THE COMPANY
All the Companies are Massachusetts corporations having their
offices and principal places of business in Haverhill, Massachusetts.
Carleton is engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of men's
leather slippers. The remaining Companies manufacture, sell, and
distribute women's novelty shoes.
224 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Carleton's annual purchases of raw materials approximate $225,000,
about 30 percent of which is received from points outside the Com-
monwealth of Massachusetts, and its annual sales of finished products
approximate $350,000, about 98 percent of which is shipped to points
outside the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
Kent's annual purchases of raw materials are in excess of $100,000,
more than 50 percent of which is received from points outside the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and its annual sales of finished
products exceed 500,000 pairs of shoes, more than 75 percent of which
is shipped to points outside the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
Holtz's annual purchases of raw materials approximate $750;000,
about 10 percent of which is received from points outside the Common-
wealth of Massachusetts, and its annual sales of finished products,
approximate $1,250,000, about 85 percent of which is shipped to points
outside the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
Harold's annual purchases of raw materials approximate $289,000,
about 30 percent of which is received from points outside the Com-
monwealth of Massachusetts, and its annual sales of finished products
approximate $533,000, about 70 percent of which is shipped to points
outside the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
Hartman's annual purchases of raw materials approximate $500,000,
about 5 percent of which is received from points outside the Common-
wealth of Massachusetts, and its annual sales of finished products
approximate $1,000,000, about 85 percent of which is shipped to
points outside the, Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
Laird-Schober's annual purchases of raw materials approximate
$350,000, about 10 percent of which is received from points outside the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and its annual sales of finished
products approximate $1,000,000, about 75 percent of which is shipped
to points outside the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
Stein-Sulkis' annual purchases of raw materials approximate
$350,000, about 10 percent of which is received from points outside
the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and its annual sales of finished
products approximate $1,000,000, about 95 percent of which is shipped
to points outside the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
Unity's annual purchases of raw materials approximate $1,000,000,
about 10 percent of which is received from points outside the Common-
wealth of Massachusetts, and its annual sales of finished products
approximate $1,750,000, about 90 percent of which is shipped to points
outside the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
Jean's purchases annually raw materials of the approximate value
of $205,000, about 10 percent of which is received from points outside
the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and its annual sales of finished
GEORGE F. CARLETON & COMPANY 22&
products approximate $500,000, abolit 50 percent of which is shipped
to points outside the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
Stephen's annual purchases of raw materials approximate $230,000,
about 5 percent of which is received from points outside the Common-
wealth of Massachusetts, and its annual sales of finished products
approximate $435,000, all of which is ultimately transported in inter-
state commerce.
Kent does not contest the jurisdiction of the National Labor Rela-
tions Board, and each of the other Companies admits that it is engaged
in commerce, within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Boot and Shoe Workers' Union, affiliated with the American Fed-
eration of Labor, and United Shoe Workers of America, affiliated with
the Congress of Industrial Organizations, are labor organizations ad-
mitting to membership employees of the Companies.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION OF CARLETON'S EM-
PLOYEES; THE ALLEGED QUESTIONS CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
By letter dated September 13, 1943, the A. F. L. requested recogni-
tion from Carleton as the collective bargaining representative of Carle-
ton's production employees. Several days after this letter was mailed
one of Carleton's officials informed a representative of the A. F. L., in
effect, that recognition would be accorded the labor organization certi-
fied by the National Labor Relations Board as the collective bargain-
ing representative of Carleton's employees.
A statement of the Regional Director, introduced into evidence at
the Carleton hearing, indicates that the A. F. L. represents a sub-
stantial number of employees in the unit of Carleton's production em-
ployees herein found to be appropriate.3 The C. I. O. relies upon a
union-shop contract with Carleton as evidence of its interest.
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning
the representation of Carleton's employees, within the meaning of
Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
Inasmuch as the other units sought by the A. F. L. are herein found
to be inappropriate, we find that no questions affecting commerce have
arisen concerning the representation of employees of Kent, Holtz,
Harold, Hartman, Laird-Schober, Stein-Sulkis, Unity, Jean's and
Stephen.
8 The Regional Director reported that the A. F. L. submitted 16 authorization cards
bearing apparently genuine original signatures of persons whose names appeared on Carle-
ton's pay roll for the week ending September 24, 1943, which contained the names of 59
persons in the aDDroerlate unit.
567900-44-vol. 54-16
226 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT OF CARLETON'S PRODUCTION EMPLOYEES; THE
ALLEGED APPROPRIATE UNITS
It is the contention of the A. F. L. that the production workers of
each of the Companies, excluding maintenance employees, office and
clerical employees, executives, foremen, and other supervisory em-
ployees with authority, to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or
otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or effectively
recommend such action, constitute 10 independent appropriate units.
The Companies and the C. I. 0. do not dispute the classifications of
employees which the A. F. L. desires to include and exclude. More-
over, Carleton agrees that its production employees form a separate
appropriate unit. However, the remaining Companies and the C. 1. 0.
urge that a multiple-employer unit embracing the production em-
ployees of all the Companies, among others, is appropriate, and that
consequently the contention of the A. F. L. is not meritorious.
From 1918 to the present, the history of collective bargaining in the
shoe industry in Haverhill has been divided into a number of well-
defined periods, each marked by the infiltration of a labor organiza-
tion which ultimately gained ascendancy by obtaining collective
bargaining contracts with almost all the slipper and women's novelty
shoe factories and stitching rooms in Haverhill whose employees
evinced interest in self-organization. Shoe Workers Protective Union
was the first of such organizations. It secured a foothold in 1918, later
became the dominant union in Haverhill, remained in power until
about 1932, and, after a lapse of approximately 1 year, entrenched itself
again in 1933. It was not until 1934 that the United Shoe and Leather
Workers displaced Shoe Workers Protective Union as the predominant
shoe workers' labor organization in Haverhill. In 1934,1935, and 1936,
United Shoe and Leather Workers held sway. In 1936 the' A. F. L.
entered upon the scene. In time it supplanted the United Shoe and
Leather Workers and retained its dominant position until 1941 when it,
the C. I. 0., and some 23 slipper and women's novelty shoe factories
and stitching rooms in Haverhill agreed in writing to a consent elec-
tion which was conducted in early 1942 under the auspices of the
Board. The C. I. 0. emerged victorious, and' as a consequence it ob-
tained union-shop contracts with the employer signatories of the con-
sent election agreement, among whom were all the Companies. In
addition, it secured union-shop agreements with other Haverhill shoe
manufacturers.
During all this time, except for a lapse from 1932 to 1933, there
existed in Haverhill an organization of manufacturers associated with
the shoe industry. In 1933 the present organization, Shoe Manu-
facturers' Board of Trade, was formed. This organization and its,
GEORGE F. CARLETON & COMPANY 227
predecessors are jointly referred to herein as the Association. One
of the primary purposes of the Association was to act for its members
in the matter of labor relations. For the past 25 years, disregarding
the 1-year interval when it was not in existence, the Association dealt
for its members with the union which dominated each period in the
making of collective bargaining contracts and the adjustment of wages
and piece rates. On many occasions the Association treated with the
union in ascendancy concerning questions relating to certain of its
members' working conditions and also in regard to labor disputes in
which they were involved. Except for one or two isolated instances
the Association's membership gave their unanimous support.
It was also customary for non-members whose employees were or-
ganized to follow the lead of the Association by adhering to the wage
scales and piece rates which it negotiated and by accepting the form
of contract executed by Association members.
Indicative of the common course pursued by almost all the organized
slipper and women's novelty shoe factories and stitching rooms in
Haverhill was the series of events in 1941 and 1942 culminating in the
execution of the contracts presently held by the C. I. O. Although
the consent election agreement provided that "nothing in this agree-
ment shall be used as a precedent in any future case except .in a pro-
ceeding for the purpose of enforcing the terms of this agreement," we
cannot disregard the overt actions of the parties. As the basis for
the consent election the unit agreed upon by all concerned was one
initially suggested by the A. F. L. That unit comprised the pooled
production employees of the employer signatories to the consent elec-
tion agreement. It is significant that the bulk of the Haverhill shoe
workers thereby manifested through their labor organizations a desire
for a multiple-employer unit. Also significant is the fact that all the
employers involved assented, thus underscoring the historic concerted
action of Haverhill shoe industry employers. More than one-half of
the employer participants in the election were Association members,
the Association having executed the consent election agreement as their
representative. After the C. I. O. won the election, its first step was
to negotiate with an Association committee respecting the form and
content of a collective bargaining contract. An agreement was reached
by the C. I. O. and the Association committee. Thereafter, uniform
individual contracts conforming to the agreement negotiated between
the C. I. O. and Association representatives were separately executed
by all the members of the Association and also by almost every other
non-member in Haverhill engaged in manufacturing slippers and
women's novelty shoes and in the operation of a stitching room. As
noted above, the contracts provide for a union shop. Each expires on
December 31, 1943.
228 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Additional evidence of the Association's leadership and the unitecl
action of Haverhill shoe manufacturers is found in another recent oc-
currence. In 1942 the War Labor Board passed upon the C. I. O.'s de-
mand for a vacation with pay. Despite the fact that the members of
the Association were separately involved, every slipper and women's
novelty shoe factory and stitching room in Haverhill under contract
with the C. I. 0., members and non-members of the Association alike,
accepted the War Labor Board's dispositive action.
All the Companies, with the exception of Carleton, Kent, and Jean's,
are current members of the Association. The Association's entire
membership now consists of 11 Haverhill stitching rooms and slipper
and women's novelty shoe factories. It is clear from all the forego-
ing facts that the employees of the Association's members form. the
nucleus for a multiple-employer unit 4 Furthermore, the long his-
tory of collective bargaining which revolved about the Association
discloses that almost all non-members engaged in manufacturing slip-
pers and women's novelty shoes and in the operation of stitching
rooms whose employees were organized acted in concert with the As-
sociation by following its lead. The position of record of non-mem-
bers -Kent and Jean's that a multiple-employer unit is appropriate,
manifests a present willingness to continue this relationship, and imr
pels the conclusion that their employees and those of others similarly
situated, together with the employees of the Association Companies
and the balance of its membership constitute an appropriate unit-
We accordingly find that the separate units sought by the A. F. L:
with respect to the production employees of Kent, Jean's, and the As-
sociation Companies are inappropriate.
Carleton, however, by asserting that its production employees com-
prise an independent unit reveals an intention to pursue an individ-
ualistic course. Consequently, we find that its production employees,
excluding maintenance employees, office and clerical employees, execu-
tives, foremen, and other supervisory employees with authority to,
hire, promote, 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 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 of Carleton herein found to be an appropriate unit who were
employed during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date
' Matter of Itayonter Incorporated , Grays Harbor Division, 52 N. L. R. - B. 1377.
0
GEORGE F. CARLE2ON'& COMPANY 229
,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 Relations
Board Rules and Regulations-Series 3, it is hereby
DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation to ascertain represent-
atives for the purposes of collective bargaining with George F.
Carleton & Company, Inc., Haverhill, 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 direction
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 Article III, Sections 10 and 11, of said Rules and Regula-
tions, among the employees of Carleton 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 em-
ployees 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 Boot and Shoe Workers' Union, affiliated
with 'the American Federation of Labor, or by United Shoe Workers
of America, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations,
for the purposes of collective bargaining, or by neither.
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the separate petitions filed by Boot and
Shoe Workers' Union, affiliated with the American Federation of
Labor, for investigation and certification of representatives of the
employees of Kent Shoe Corporation, Case No. 1-R-1617; Herbert
Holtz Shoe Company, Inc., Case No. 1-R-1618; Harold Shoe Co., Inc.,
'Case No. 1-R-1619; Hartman Shoe Manufacturing Co., Case No.
1-R-1620; Laird-Schober & Co., Inc., Case No. 1-R-1621; Stein-
Sulkis Shoe Co., Case No. 1-R-1622; Unity Shoemakers Corp., Case
No. 1-k-1623; Jean's Inc., Case No. 1-R-4628; and Stephen Shoe
Company, Case No. 1-R-1629, be, and they hereby are, dismissed.
CHAIRMAN MILLIS took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision, Direction of Election and Order.