Greater New York Bedding Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 9, 1941

31 N.L.R.B. 706 (N.L.R.B. 1941)

In the Matter of MORRIS LIPPS AND LILLIAN LIPPS, CO-PARTNERS, DOING
BUSINESS UNDER THE TRADE NAME AND STYLE OF GREATER NEW YORK
BEDDING Co. and BEDDING LOCAL 140 OF THE UNITED FURNITURE
WORKERS OF AMERICA (C. I. 0.)
Case No. R-2452.-Decided May 9, 1941
Jurisdiction : bedding manufacturing industry. - -
Practice and Procedure : petition dismissed where no question concerning repre-
sentation has arisen in view of the existence of a contract between the Com-
pany and the union seeking certification in which the union is. accorded
exclusive recognition.
Mr. D. R. Dimick, for the Board.
Mr. Jacob H. Steinberg, of New York City, for the Company.
Mr. Abraham J. Isserman'of Newark, N. J., and Mr. Harry Wein-
stock, of New York City, for Local 140.
Mr. Morris Shapiro, of New York City, for Local 350.
Miss Marcia Hertzmark, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On November'29, 1940, Bedding Local 140 of the United Furniture
Workers of America, (C. I. 0.), herein called Local 140, filed with
the Regional Director for the Second Region (New York City) a
petition alleging that a question affecting commerce had arisen
concerning the representation of employees of Morris Lipps and
Lillian Lipps, copartners, doing business under the trade name and
style of Greater New York Bedding Co.,' New York City, herein
caller the Company, and requesting an investigation and certification
of, representatives pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act., 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. On March 6,
1941, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board,
acting pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the Act and Article III, Section
3, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series
i The petition referred to the Company merely as Greater New York Bedding Company.
31 N. L. R. B., No. 119.
706
MORRIS LIPPS 707
2, as amended, ordered an investigation and authorized the Regional
Director to conduct it and to provide for an appropriate hearing
upon due notice.
On March 7, 1941, the Regional Director issued a notice of hearing
-copies of which were duly served upon the Company, Local 140,
and Allied Bedding, Curtain and Drapery Workers Union, Local
350 (A. F. L.), herein called Local 350,'a labor organization claiming
to represent employees directly affected by the investigation. Pur;
suant to notice, a hearing was held on March 31 and April 1, 1941,
at New York City, before James C. Paradise, the Trial Examiner
duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. Full opportunity to
be heard, to examine,and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce
evidence bearing on the issues was afforded all parties. At the com-
mencement of the hearing Local 350 moved for an adjournment on
the ground that a complete determination of the issues involved may
result from action instituted in the Supreme Court of New York by
Local 350, and that, the rights of Local 350 might be prejudiced by
proceeding before the Board. The Trial Examiner denied the
motion. During the course of the hearing the Trial Examiner made
several other rulings on motions and on objections to the admission
of evidence. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Ex-
aminer and finds that no prejudicial errors were committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed.
On April 25, 1941; Local 140 filed a brief with the Board which
has been considered.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
The Company is a copartnership having its principal office and
place of business in New York City where it is engaged in the man-
ufacture, sale, and distribution of mattresses, springs and related
products. The principal raw materials used by the Company are
cotton, cotton goods, steel wire, and steel products. During the year
1940 the Company purchased over $150,000 worth of such raw mate-
rials, of which approximately 75 per cent were shipped to its New
York plant from points outside the State of New York. During the
same period the Company manufactured at its New York plant over
$300,000 worth of finished products, of which about 40 per cent were
shipped to points outside the State of New York. The Company
admits that it is engaged in interstate commerce within the meaning
of the, Act.
441843-42-v-ol 31-46
708 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR. RELATIONS BOARD
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Bedding Local 140 of the United Furniture Workers of America,
is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress of Industrial
Organizations.
Allied Bedding, Curtain and Drapery Workers Union, Local 350,
is a labor organization affiliated with the American Federation of
Labor.
III. THE ALLEGED QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
Since 1937 the Company, either individually.or as a member of
Associated Bedding Manufacturers of Greater New York, Inc., has
had contractual relations with Local 140. The last contract, prior
to the present issues, expired on August 15, 1940. On June 28, 1940,
Local 350_ advised the Company that it represented a majority of its
employees and requested a' conference for the purposes of collective
bargaining. On July 23, 1940, Local • 140 sent to the Company a
petition signed by 36 of the 39 persons then employed by the Com-
pany, advising that they were aware of the request by Local 350
and stating that "Local 140 has the exclusive right to bargain for.us."
On August 16, 1940, the Company, after it had been assured that
Local 350 represented a majority of its employees, entered into a
1 year closed-shop contract with Local 350. The contract was in two
parts, one in ordinary contract, form, and the other in the form of
a letter which stated that it was supplementary to the agreement of
the same ,date and which provided among other things (1) that "if
at any time there is a determination by any official governmental
agency that we do not represent a majority of the workers, then the
agreement shall be considered cancelled," and (2) that if "a strike
is called by another labor union . . . this agreement shall be can-
celled" if, in the opinion of the Company's attorney, a reasonable
time has elapsed to allow Local 350 to remedy the conditions. The
contract and letter were signed by Albert - I. Gorner, General
Organizer for Local 350.
'On August 18, 1940, Local 140 called a strike of the Company's
employees, all of whom went out. The strike was terminated on
August 29 upon the agreement of the Company to sign a contract
with Local 140. Such a contract was signed on September 9, 1940.
It granted Local 140 exclusive recognition and a closed shop, and
,is to expire on August 15, 1941.
On October 1, 1940, Local 350 filed suit in the New York Supreme
Court against the Company, seeking an, injunction. A majority
of the employees claiming membership in Local 140 were,allowed
to intervene in that suit for the purpose of opposing the claim of-
Local 350, and two interlocutory appeals are now pending therein.
MORRIS LIPPS 709
On November 26, 1940, the Company's attorney wrote to Local 350
stating, among other things,- that his examination indicated that
Local 350 did not represent a majority of the Company's employees
on August 16; 1940, and "that immediately upon ,the cancellation
of the said. agreement by myself pursuant to the authority vested
in me contained in a letter dated August 16, 1940, executed simul-
taneously with the agreement and made a part thereof, all the regular
employees voluntarily returned to work. That I notified Mr. Gorner
of these facts on August 28th, 29th and on many subsequent occa-
sions in person." At the hearing Local 350 denied the -authority
of Gorner, to execute the letter of August 16, although admitting lie
had authority to execute the formal contract.
In its brief to the Board Local 140 states that the agreement sighed
on September 9, 1940 "is still in, force and governs the conditions
under which 'the" employees, all "members of Local 140. are now em-
ployed." However, it desires that an election be held. Local 350, as
indicated heretofore, requested an" adjournment of this proceeding.
The Company took no position in the matter.
In view of the fact that Local 140 has a contract with the Com-
pany according it exclusive recognition as representative of the
Company's employees which does not expire until August 15, 1941,
we find that no question concerning representation of employees of
the Company now exists.
Upoii tie ; basis of the above findings of fact and, upon the entire
record in the case, the Board makes the following :
CONCLUSION OP LAW
No question concerning representation of employees of Morris
Lipps and Lillian Lipps, copartners, doing business under the trade
name and style of Greater New York Bedding Co., New York City,
now exists, within the meaning 'of Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor. Relations Act.
ORDER
Upon the 'basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusion
of law, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the
petition for investigation and certification of representatives filed
by Bedding Local 140 of the United Furniture Workers of America
(C. I. 0.) be, and it hereby is, dismissed.