International Shoe Co.Download PDFNational Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsFeb 16, 195193 N.L.R.B. 331 (N.L.R.B. 1951) Copy Citation INTERNATIONAL SHOE COMPANY 331 INTERNATIONAL SHOE COMPANY and UNITED SHOE WORKERS OF AMER- ICA, CIO , PETITIONER . Case No . 17-RC-912. February 16, 1951 Decision and Direction of Election Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Harry G. Carlson, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed., Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated' its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Murdock and Styles]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain em- ployees of the Employer. 3. The question concerning representation : The Petitioner notified the Employer on October 24, 1950, that it represented a majority of the employees at the Employer's Eldon, Missouri, plant. On the same day the Petitioner filed its petition with the Board's Fourteenth Regional Office in St. Louis, Missouri. The Employer and the Intervenor contend that the Petitioner's claim was too late because they had entered into an agreement covering the unit here involved on October 3, 1950. However, this contract had not been signed by all of the parties until after the Petitioner had made its claim and filed its petition herein. Under well-established Board principles, it cannot act as a bar to this proceeding? The Employer and the Intervenor also contend that if the Board finds that the October 3, 1950, agreement is not a bar to this proceeding, the 1949 contract between them remained in effect and therefore is a bar. The 1949 contract relied on by the Employer and the Intervenor, provided that if neither party gave notice of termination at least 30 days before the end of the contract, on November 30, 1950, it would be renewed automatically for another year. Neither party gave such notice. However, the Petitioner notified the employer of its claim on October 24, 1950, before the operative or "Mill B" date of the auto- I At the hearing and in its brief, Boot and Shoe Workers ' Union, AFL, hereinafter called the Intervenor , moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that the Petitioner had failed to show a substantial interest The motion is hereby denied . A union's showing of interest is a matter for administrative determination and not subject to collateral attack. Arrow Mill Company, 92 NLRB No 166. The Intervenor 's and the Employer 's other motions to dismiss are also denied for the reasons set forth below in paragraph numbered 3. 2 Safeway Stores , Inc., 90 NLRB No. 295. 93 NLRB Nd. 46. 332 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD matic renewal clause. The notice and petition therefore prevented the contract, even if renewed, from becoming a bar.3 The Employer and the Intervenor contend further that the petition was defective because it was filed with the Board's Fourteenth Regional Office in St. Louis, Missouri, whereas the plant involved in this case lies within, the jurisdiction of the Board's Seventeenth Regional Office in Kansas City, Missouri. The Employer and the Intervenor argue from this premise that there is no valid petition before the Board in this case, and moreover, that under the Board's doctrine set forth in the General Electric X-Ray case,4 the Petitioner's bare claim did not prevent the renewed contract from be-- coming a bar because it was not followed within 10 days by a valid petition. Both of these contentions are without merit and are hereby rejected. The petition, although it may have been faultily filed with the Fourteenth Regional Office, was corrected when it was transferred by the General Counsel on December 6, 1950, to the Seventeenth- Regional Office, thus presenting the Board with a valid petition upon which the hearing in this case was held.5 The original petition, hav- ing been filed within 10 days after the Petitioner's claim, protected that claim. We have previously held that even though an original petition is faulty, if later perfected, the date of its original filing shalL govern in applying the General Electric X-Ray doctrine .c For the foregoing reasons we find that neither the October 3, 1950, agreement nor the 1949 contract is a bar to a present determination of representatives. We find that a question affecting commerce exists concerning the representation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The appropriate unit : In accordance with the agreement of the parties we find that all production and maintenance employees of the Employer at its Eldon, Missouri, plant excluding office and clerical employees, guards and bonded watchmen, and professional employees and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this volume.] Sangamo Electric Company, 90 NLRB No. 20. General Electric X-Ray Corp , 67 NLRB 997. Compare • Chicago Mill and Lumber Company , 69 NLRB 855. s Gale Products, 77 NLRB 254. Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation