McLeod Veneer Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 7, 1947

73 N.L.R.B. 859 (N.L.R.B. 1947)

In the Matter of MCLEOD VENEER COMPANY, EMPLOYER and UNITED
FURNITURE WORKERS OF AMERICA, C. I. 0., PETITIONER
Case No. 51V-R-26.-Decided May 7, 1947
Taylor & Kitchin , by Mr. A. P. Kitchin , of Wadesboro , N. C., and.
Mr. J. F . McLeod, of Chesterfield , S. C., for the Employer.
Mr. Harry Weinstock , of New York City , Mr. Charles H.
Coburn, Jr., of Sumter , S. C., and Mr. William Helms, of High Point,
N. C. for the Petitioner.
Messrs. Ben Shouse , Bernard Hiatt, Douglas H. Woodall, and
James Farmer, of High Point , N. C., for the Intervenor.
Mr. Melvin J. Welles , of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at Wades-
boro, North Carolina, on February 20, 1947, before Sidney J. Barban,
hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are
free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. At the hearing,
the Intervenor moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that its
contract with the Employer is a bar to an election. For reasons
stated in Section III, infra, this motion is hereby denied.
Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations
Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
McLeod Veneer Company, a North Carolina corporation, is engaged
in the manufacture of plywood boxes and panels at its plant in Wades-
boro, North Carolina.' During the year ending December 31, 1946,
the Employer purchased raw materials valued in excess of $200,000,
1 Until June 1946, the Employer 's operations were carried on by John F. McLeod, doing
business as John F. McLeod Veneer Company . The corporation took over the operations
of the partnership in June 1946 See Matter of John F McLeod and Eva 'P McLeod,
Copartners , d/b/a John F . McLeod Veneer Company, 62 N. L. R. B. 540, in which the
Board asserted jurisdiction over the partnership 's operations.
73 N L. R B., No 1('3 859
860 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of which approximately 63 percent was shipped to the Employer's
plant from points outside the State of North Carolina. During the
same period, the Employer manufactured goods of a value in excess of
$200,000, of which approximately 31 percent was shipped to points
outside the State of North Carolina.
The Employer admits and we find that it is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The Petitioner is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress of
Industrial Organizations, claiming to represent employees of the
Employer.
Upholsterers' International Union of North America, herein called
the Intervenor, is a labor organization affiliated with the American
Federation of Labor, claiming to represent employees of the Employer.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING. REPRESENTATION
The Petitioner and the Employer entered into a contract on Septem-
ber 14, 1945, following a Board directed election 2 won by the Peti-
tioner, and Board certification of the Petitioner on July 26,1945. This
contract was for a 1-year term, and did not provide for automatic
renewal.
On September 2, 1946, the Employer's president met with the local
negotiating committee and an international representative of the Peti-
tioner to discuss a new contract to succeed the 1945 contract. No agree-
ment was reached at this meeting. On September 10, 1946, at a special
meeting of the Petitioner, all but one of the approximately 45 em-
ployees presents voted to disaffiliate from the Petitioner and affiliate
with the Intervenor. Thereafter, on September 12, 1946, the same
negotiating committee, then representing the Intervenor, conferred
with the Employer, and told its president that the "unit" had "shifted
over" to the Intervenor. The Employer agreed to extend the terms of
the existing contract with the Petitioner after its expiration date, so
that it would run to the Intervenor's favor.
On September 23, 1946, the same negotiating committee and the
same international representative who had met with the Employer on
September 2,1946, conferred again with the Employer, this time for the
Intervenor. And on that date, the Employer and the Intervenor
signed a contract for a 1-year term identical to the Petitioner's expired
contract, with the exception of wage scales. ° No further proof of
majority was presented to the Employer's president, who testified at
2 Ibid.
2 There were approximately 76 employees in the unit at that time.
McLEOD VENEER COMPANY 861
the hearing that he knew at that time, and on Se tember 12, 1946, of
the schism in the Petitioner's organization . Onseptember 24, 1946,
the Petitioner wrote to the Employer, advising it not to deal with the
Intervenor.
On January 7, 1947, the Petitioner filed its original petition. The
Intervenor contends that its contract with the Employer is a bar to
a present determination of representatives.
There is no question but that the Employer knew of the schism
in the Petitioner's organization at the time of the first conference,
on September 12, 1946, between the Employer and the Intervenor,
for its president, as indicated above, testified to that effect at the
hearing. In the Central Pattern c6 Foundry case,4 in which there
was a substantially similar situation, the Board said :
We cannot attach importance to the contention- of the Com-
pany and the International that no recognition demand was made
by the Independent ... until shortly after the contract was
signed. The chronology of events recited above makes it clear
that even before that time the Company had abundant notice
of the unresolved question of representation which, as above
noted, arose from the factional dispute- within Local Union No.
738, as well as notice that the Independent had been set up
as a separate labor organization and, as such, was pressing its
representation claim in opposition to that of the International.
Here, too, the chronology of events makes it clear that the Em-
ployer had notice of the unresolved question of representation at
the time it executed the contract with the Intervenor. -Furthermore,
the Employer had conferred with representatives of the Petitioner
on September 2, 1946, 10 days before the conference with the Inter-
venor, and 21 days before the execution of the contract between the
Employer and the Intervenor. Thus, at the time the new contract
was executed, the Employer knew that the Petitioner was claiming
to be the representative of its employees.
This state of the facts requires that the Board consider the ef-
feet of the General Electric X-Ray case,'' for the Petitioner's origi-
nal petition was not filed until more than 10 days after the confer-
ence of September 2, 1946, and the meeting of September 12, 1946.
In the Acme Brewing 6 case, the Board, in refusing to apply the
10-day rule of the General Electric X-Ray case, said :
. .. the Petitioner's active incumbency at the time it asserted
its continued claim to representation amply demonstrates the
4 Matter of Central Patter it d Foundry company, 51 N L. R. B 400
5 Matter of General Electric X-Ray Corpoo ation, 67 N L. R B 997.
aMatter of Aenie Brewing Company, et al., 72 N L. R B 1001.
862 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
substantiality of that claim and refutes the implication that it
was desirous of delaying valid collective bargaining for the pur-
poses of strengthening its position. This is not the normal case,
where the validity of a union's claim, when made, can be verified
only by the Board's prompt administrative examination of its
authorization cards or other proof of interest. In the normal
case, failure to permit such an inquiry by the filing of a peti-
tion within 10 days after the claim is advanced warrants the con-
clusion that the claim is unfounded and justifies a refusal to inter-
fere with the bargaining relations between the contracting parties.
Here, a prompt examination would have revealed nothing more
than the facts disclosed by this record.
In the instant case, as in Acme Brewing, the Petitioner's claim was
made at the time it was an active inotmbant, with a written collective
bargaining agreement with the Employer which was not to expire
until September 19, 1946. In view of this fact, we are of the opinion
that the rule of the General Electric X-Ray case is not applicable to
this proceeding, and the contract of September 23, 1946, between the
Employer and the Intervenor, is not a bar to a current determination
of representatives, having been made at a time when the Employer
hade notice of the Petitioner's valid claim.
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 accordance with the agreement of the parties, that all
production and maintenance employees of the Employer, including
watchmen and the lathe operator, but excluding clerical employees,
lumber checker, superintendent, foreman, and all other supervisory
employees with authority, to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or
otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or effectively rec-
ommend such action, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes
of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of
the Act.7
DIRECTION OF ELECTION"
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining with McLeod Veneer Company, Wades-
This unit is the same as the one found appropriate in Matter of John F. McLeod Veneer
company, supra, except that the lathe operator is here included in the unit, as all parties
agree that he is no longer a supervisory employee.
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.
McLEOD VENEER COMPANY 863
boro, North Carolina, 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 Fifth 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 Sec-
tion IV, above, who were employed during the pay-roll period imme-
diately preceding the date of this Direction, 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 determine whether they desire to
be represented by United Furniture Workers of America, C. I. 0., or
by Upholsterers' International Union of North America, A. F. L., for
the purposes of collective bargaining, or by neither.
739926-47-vol -3--- i6