L-U-C-E Manufacturing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 9, 1942

40 N.L.R.B. 384 (N.L.R.B. 1942)

In the Matter of L-U-C-E MANUFACTURING COMPANY and KANSAS
CITY LUGGAGE AND NOVELTY WORKERS LOCAL #66, ' AFFILIATED WITH
THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR
Case No. R-3467.-Decided April 9, 1942
Jurisdiction : luggage manufacturing industry.
Investigation and Certification of Representatives : existence of question: con-
flicting claims of rival labor organizations ; eligibility of employees to be
determined by the pay-roll period immediately preceding the filing of the
petition since the Company -and the contracting union agreed, in settlement
of a strike, to preserve the status quo for the determination, of the question
of representation pursuant thereto ; striking employees and new employees
hired at such time eligible to vote in the election ; election necessary.
Unit Appropriate for Collective Bargaining : all production and maintenance em-
ployees, excluding supervisory and clerical employees and janitors.
Mr. Ford R. Nelson, of Kansas City, Mo., for the Company.
Langsdale, Langsdale c Langsdale, by Mr. Gibson Langsdale and
Mr. Cli f Langsdale, of Kansas City, Mo., for the Luggage Workers.
Mr. Henry C. Clark and Mr. Jamels Pramzarone, of Kansas City,
Mo., for the Amalgamated.
Mrs. Augusta Spaulding, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On November 3, 1941, Kansas City Luggage and Novelty Workers
Local #66, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, herein
called the Luggage Workers, filed with' the Regional Director for
the Seventeenth Region (Kansas City, Missouri)- a petition alleging
that a question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the repre-
sentation of employees of L-U-C-E Manufacturing Company,' Kansas
City, Missouri, herein called the Company, and requesting an investi-
gation and certification of representatives pursuant to Section 9 (c)
'The petition and other formal papers were amended at the hearing to disclose the
correct name of the Company.
40 N. L. R. B., No. 62.
384
L-U-C-E MANUFACTURING COMPANY 385
of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the
Act. On December 15, 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 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 December 22, 1941, the Regional Director issued a notice of
hearing, copies of which were duly served upon the Company and
the Luggage Workers, and upon Amalgamated Clothing Workers of
America, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations,
herein called the Amalgamated, a labor organization claiming to
represent employees directly affected by the investigation. Pursuant
to notice, a hearing was held on January 15 and 19, 1942, at Kansas
City, Missouri, before Clarence D. Musser, the Trial Examiner duly
designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. All parties were repre-
sented by counsel 2 and participated in the hearing. Full opportunity
to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce
evidence bearing on the issues was afforded all- parties. During ' the
course of the hearing the Trial Examiner made several rulings on
motions and on objections to the admission of evidence. The Board
has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no
prejudicial errors were committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed.
On February 9, 1941, the Company and, on February 11, 1941, the
Amalgamated filed briefs which the Board has considered. }
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
L-U-C-E Manufacturing Company is engaged in-the manufacture,
sale, and distribution of card tables, hand bags; and luggage at Kan-;
sas City, Missouri. The principal raw,materials used by the Com-,
pany at its plant are leather and leather, findings, cotton, wool, and
silk textiles, wood, paint, paper, metal and metal findings, rubber,
and polish, of which 99 percent is brought to its plant from-points.
outside Missouri. The Company manufactured, at' 'its 'plant mer-
chandise valued in 1940 at $520,000, of which 95 to 99 percent was
sold and distributed to points outside Missouri. The Company's
business in 1941 was substantially the same as in 1940. The Com-
pany admits that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
t
2 Counsel ' for the Amalgamated appeared also for Local No. 260 , chartered by the
Amalgamated for employees of the Company.
455771-42-vol. 40-25
386' DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
,II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Kansas City Luggage and Novelty Workers Local #66 is a labor
organization affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, ad-
mitting to membership employees of the Company.
Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America is a labor organization
affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations. Local No.
260, chartered by the Amalgamated, admits to membership employees
of the Company.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
On September 5, 1941, the A. F. of L. notified the Company that
it represented a majority of the Company's employees and desired a
bargaining conference with the Company.3 The Company did not
reply to this letter. During September .1941 employees of the Com-
pany who had signed general authorization cards of the A. F. of L.
in the spring and summer of 1941 became members of the recently
chartered city-wide Kansas City Luggage and Novelty Workers
Local #66, herein called the Luggage Workers, the petitioner in this
proceeding. On October 20, 1941, the Luggage Workers advised the
Company by letter that it represented a majority of the Company's
employees and desired to bargain with the Company for such em-
ployees when a contract between the Company and the Amalgamated
terminated on December 1, 1941. On November 3, 1941, the Luggage
Workers filed the petition in this proceeding.
On April 19, 1940, the Amalgamated entered into a closed-shop 4
contract with the Company, terminating on December 1, 1940, and
renewable thereafter from'year to year unless terminated by 30 days'
notice before any renewal date. The contract was automatically
renewed on December 1, 1940. On November 1, 1941, neither the
Amalgamated nor the Company gave express notice to the other of a
desire to terminate the contract on December 1, 1941. The Amalgam-
ated contends, therefore, that this contract is valid and subsisting
and constitutes a bar to an investigation and determination of repre-
sentatives at this time.,, We find no merit in this contention. Since
•3 On March 13, 1941, the A F of L. had filed a petition for investigation and certification
with the Regional Director . On May 29 , 1941, the Board dismissed this petition without
hearing A witness for the A. F . of L testified that the reason given for this dismissal
was that the pendency of a contract between the Company and the Amalgamated, more;
particularly described below, constituted a bar to an investigation of representatives at
that time -
4 Section 2 of the coritraet provided that the Company should employ members of the
Amalgamated ; Section 5 provided that newly hired employees should become members of
the Amalgamated after a trial period of 6 weeks
5 The Amalgamated further contends that all employees of the Company at the time of
the hearing were mnembers.in good standing of the Amalgamated , and that there is, there-
fore, no question concerning the representation of the Company 's employees.
L-U-C-E! MANUFACTURING COMPANY 387
both the Company and the Amalgamated had notice , before Novem-
ber 1, 1941 , first of the claim of the A. F. of L. and later that of the
Luggage Workers, its affiliate , that each represented a majority of
the Company 's employees , we find that the contract between the
Company and the Amalgamated constitutes no bar to an investiga-
tion and determination of representatives at this time.
A statement of a Field Examiner introduced into evidence at the
hearing indicates ' that the Luggage Workers and the Amalgamated
each represents a substantial number of employees in the appropriate
units
We find that a question has arisen concerning the representation
of the Company 's employees.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION UPON
COMMERCE
We find that the question concerning representation which has
arisen, occurring in connection with the operations of the Company
described- in Section I above, has a close, intimate, and substantial
relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and
tends to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce
and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The parties agree, and we find, that all production and maintenance
employees of the Company, excluding supervisory and clerical em-
ployees and janitors, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes
of collective bargaining.' We further find that said unit will insure
to employees of the Company the full benefit of their right to self-
organization and to collective bargaining, and will otherwise effectuate
the policies of the Act.
VI. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
We find that the question which has arisen concerning the repre-
sentation of the Company's employees can best be resolved by an
election by secret ballot.
9 The Luggage workers submitted 287 applical ion cards , all dated in 1941 except 9 un-
dated , of which 222 cards bear names of employees on the Company's pay roll of September
27, 1941 , and 31 hear names of employees on the Company 's pay roll of October 27, 1941.
The Amalgamated submitted 380 application cards , of which 72 are dated before 1941,
111 are undated , and the remainder dated in 1941 Of these 371 appear to bear genuine
signatures , of which 91 are the names of persons on the Company's pay roll of September
27, 1941 , and 197 are names of employees on the pay roll of October 27, 1941.
There were 309 employees on the pay roll of September 27, 1941 , and 217 on the pay roll
of October 27, 1941 . At the time of the hearing all employees at work in the Company's
plant were members of the Amalgamated
' Such employees were covered by the contract between the Company and the Amalga-
mated, noted above.
388 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL- LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
- The Luggage Workers and the Amalgamated are in dispute as to
what persons are eligible to participate in the determination of a
bargaining representative. A resolution of the question of eligibility
turns upon the events relating to a strike of the Company's employees
which commenced on September 29, 1941.
On April 19, 1940, as noted in Section III above, the Amalgamated
and the-Company entered into a•contract providing for the employ-
ment of members. of the Amalgamated and for the affiliation. -with the
Amalgamated of all newly hired employees after the expiration of a
6 weeks' trial period. This contract was renewed on December 1, 1940.
In February 1941, employees of the Company, dissatisfied with the
prevailing wage scale established in 1937, made frequent appeals to
the business agent of the Amalgamated in an effort to secure higher
wages. Many such employees were not members of the Amalgamated
when hired and had not thereafter been asked to join the Amalgam-
ated in accordance with the terms of the contract. A substantial
number of such employees affiliated with the A. F. of L. in February
and March 1941.
On September 3, 1941, after the A. F. of L. had obtained a substan-
tial membership among the Company's employees, the Amalgamated
notified the Company that there were employees on the pay roll, hired
since the execution of the contract, who had not become members of
the Amalgamated. Up to this time the provisions of the contract re-
quiring membership in the Amalgamated had not been enforced. The
Company, however, immediately posted notices on its bulletin board,
citing the contract and asking its employees to take necessary steps to
prevent their discharge. The record does not disclose that any em-
ployee joined the Amalgamated as a result of this' notice or' that- any
employee was discharged for non-compliance with it.
On September 27, 1941, a committee of employees obtained' an inter
view with the president of the Company and personally submitted to
her a letter requesting an increase in wages. These employees did not
purport to be'members of any labor organization or claim to be other
than a group of employees, acting voluntarily in the -interest of them-
selves ' and their fellow . employees. The president of the Company
refused to confer with them on the subject of wages unless they were
accompanied by a representative of the Amalgamated.
- -On September, 29; 1941, almost all the production employees of
the Company participated in a strike for, higher wages.. Production
work ceased. The striking employees established a. picket line about
the, plant. The strike was` not endorsed in advance by any labor
organization. The A. ,F. -of L., however, subsequently endorsed the
L-U-C-E MANUFACTURING COMPANY 389
strike and the strikers began carrying A. F. of L. -banners.' The
Amalgamated, however, repudiated any responsibility for the strike
and set up a counter picket line.
On October 8, 1941, the Company published in a local newspaper
an invitation to its striking employees to return to work on or before
October 13, 1941, requiring as a condition of their return that they
become members of the Amalgamated in good standing. Some strik-
ing employees refused reinstatement under such conditions. Other
employees, securing the permission of the Luggage Workers, returned
to work at the plant. About the middle of October,'with a working
staff composed partly of such returned strikers and partly of- new
employees hired through the Amalgamated, all,of whom had secured
permit cards from the Amalgamated before they were placed at work
in the plant, the Company resumed operations.s - -
-On or about October 13, 1941, the Company filed a petition in the
.Circuit Court of Jackson County,- Missouri, requesting that the Court
certify to'the Company' the bargaining' agent of its employees and
that the Court enjoin the picketing at the Company's plant., The
Court denied the Company's petition for declaratory judgment, stat-
.ing-that the determination of the bargaining- representative lay
avithinmthe exclusive jurisdiction, of the Board. The Court; however,
,enjoined the picketing of the A. F. of L. at the Company's plant.
This injunction became final about November 20, 1941. On Novem-
ber 3, 1941, meanwhile, -the Luggage Workers filed 'the petition in
this proceeding. .
On November 18, 1941; at a conference sponsored by a conciliator
of the Labor Department, in attempted settlement of the dispute, the
Company, with the consent of the Amalgamated, agreed-to permit
all employees remaining on strike to return to work without joining
the Amalgamated, and further promised that when a bargaining'rep-
sentative should be determined by the Board, pursuant to the petition
filed by the Luggage Workers in - this proceeding, the Company
would enter into a new contract providing for an increase in wages
which should be retroactive to the date of the strikers' return to work.
The volume of the Company's business at that time afforded sufficient'
work for the reinstatement of • all employees remaining on strike
without the lay-off of any newly hired employees. Some employees
8 About this time employees who had signed general authorization cards of the A. F. of L.
In the spring and summer of 1941 became members of the recently chartered city ;wide
Kansas City Luggage and Novelty Workers Local #66, herein called the Luggage workers,
the petitioner in this proceeding..
8 There were 309 employees listed on the pay roll immediately preceding September 29,
1941, the day of the strike On October 27; 1941 , there were 217 production employees
at work in the plant. - At the hearing the parties, agreed that the Company's plant had,re-
sumed "virtually normal conditions " with "virtually a full complement " of employees on
November 15, 1941, although the record does not disclose exactly bow many employees
were on the pay roll at that time.
I
390 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR -RELATIONS BOARD
refused the Company's oral offer, hesitating to return to work unless
'the Company would reduce the terms of the settlement to writing and
assure them that they would not be discriminated against because of
their membership in the' Luggage Workers.10 Other employees re-
turned to work, relying on the promise of the Company and the
-Amalgamated that they would not be compelled to join the Amalgam-
ated. After December 1, 1941, however, such employees were ad-
vised that they must join the Amalgamated or leave the service of
the Company. At least one employee left the Company rather than
comply with this order.
The Company's whole course of action discloses that it desired
to determine the question concerning representation among those who
were its employees at the time of the strike and to reinstate the strik-
ing employees rather than hire new employees. In October the Com-
pany sought a determination of the controversy concerning
representation by petition to the Circuit Court of Jackson County,
Missouri . On November 18, the Company agreed to reinstate the
remaining strikers and to preserve the status quo until the-Board had
acted on the petition of the Luggage Workers, and on the same day
the Amalgamated waived its right under the contract to insist upon
membership in its organization as a condition of employment, like-
wise pending the outcome of the representation proceeding. Thus,
the Company and the Amalgamated conceded that the issues which
caused the strike should be settled through the proper bargaining
representative of the employees at that time, and for the purpose
of 'determining the proper bargaining representative the status
quo should be maintained. In view of these facts, - and upon the
circumstances of this case, we conclude that' the pay-roll period
immediately preceding November 3, 1941, is the proper pay-roll
period for determining eligibility to participate in the election. We,
therefore, find that those eligible to vote in the election shall be all
employees in the appropriate unit who were employed during the'pay-
roll period immediately preceding November 3, 1941, including em-
ployees on strike during that pay-roll period, subject to the limita-
tions and additions set forth in our Direction of Election.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire
record in the case, the Board makes the following :
is After November 18, 1941, the Company, understanding that these employees had defi-
nitely refused its offer of reinstatement , thereafter hired additional new employees to fill
positions then open at the plant. A week later, employees remaining on strike decided to
reconsider the Company's offer of reinstatement. At that time, however, there were not
sufficient positions open at the plant to provide work for all the strikers. Their bargaining
agent refused to consider that the immediate reinstatement of a part of the remaining
striking employees was an adequate settlement of the strike.
L-U-C-B MANUF`ACTURING COMPANY 391
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. A question affecting commerce has arisen concerning the repre-
sentation of employees of L-U-C-E Manufacturing Company, Kansas
-City, Missouri, within the meaning of Section 9 (c), and Section 2
(6) and (7) of the Act.
• 2. All production and maintenance employees of L-U-C-E Manufac-
turing Company, Kansas City, Missouri, excluding supervisory and
clerical employees and janitors, constitute a unit appropriate for the
purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9
(b) of the Act.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
By virtue of, and pursuant to the power vested in the National
Labor Relations Board by Section 9 (o) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, 49 Stat. 449, and pursuant to Article III, Section 8, of
National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 2,
as amended, it is hereby
DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation ordered by the Board to
ascertain representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining
with L-U-C-E Manufacturing Company, Kansas City, Missouri,
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
of Election, under the direction and supervision of the Regional
"Director for the Seventeenth Region, acting in this matter as agent
for the National Labor Relations Board, and subject to Article III,
Section 9, of said Rules and Regulations, among all production and
maintenance employees of the Company who were employed during
the pay-roll period immediately preceding 'November 3, 1941, in-
cluding employees on strike and employees who did not work during
said pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation or in the
active military service or training of the United States, or tem-
porarily laid off, but excluding supervisory and clerical employees,
janitors, and employees who have since quit or been discharged for
cause, to determine whether they desire to be represented by Kansas
City Luggage and Novelty Workers Local #66, affiliated with the
American Federation of Labor, or by Amalgamated Clothing Work-
ers of America, Local No. 260, affiliated with the Congress of In-
dustrial Organizations, for the purposes of collective bargaining, or
-by neither. - •