Monomac Spinning Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 26, 1946

66 N.L.R.B. 1180 (N.L.R.B. 1946)

In the Matter of MONOMAC SPINNING COMPANY and TEXTILE WORKERS
UNION OF AMERICA, C. I. O.
Case No. 1-R-2760.Decided March 26, 1946
Ropes, Gray, Best, Coolidge d Rugg, by Mr. John M. Mullen, of
Boston, Mass., for the Company.
Mr. Benjamin Wyle, of New York City, for the C. I. O.
Mr. Bernard L. Eberts, of Washington, D. C., for the A. F. of L.
and Local 30.
Mr. Elmer P. Freischlag, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a petition duly filed by Textile Workers Union of America,
C. I. 0., herein called the C. I. 0., alleging that a question affecting
colpmerce had arisen concerning the representation of employees of
Monomac Spinning Company, Lawrence, Massachusetts, herein called
the Company, the National Labor Relations Board provided for an
appropriate hearing upon due notice before Samuel G. Zack, Trial
Examiner. The hearing was held at Lawrence, Massachusetts, on
January 15, 1946. At the hearing, the United Textile Workers of
America, A. F. of L., herein called the A. F. of L., intervened in
behalf of Local 30, Department of Woolen & Worsted Workers,
herein called Local 30. The Company, the C. I. 0., and the A. F.
of L. appeared and participated. All parties were afforded full
opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses,
and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues. At the close of the
hearing, the A. F. of L. moved to dismiss the petition on the ground
that an existing contract is a bar to a present determination of repre-
sentatives. The motion was referred to the Board. For the reasons
appearing hereinafter, the motion is denied. The Trial Examiner's
rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and
are hereby affirmed. All parties were afforded opportunity to file
briefs with the Board.
66 N. L . R. B., No. 143.
1180
JIONOMAC SPINNING COMPANY 1181
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS of FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE CO-AIPANY
Monomac Spinning Company, with its office and plant located at
Lawrence, Massachusetts, is engaged in the manufacture of worsted
and special types of yarns. During the year 1945, the Company
purchased raw materials consisting principally of wool tops, cotton
sliver, and other fibers, valued at approximately $5,000,000, more than
50 percent of which represented shipments to the Company from
points outside the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. During the same
period, the Company sold finished products amounting in value to
about $7,000,000, approximately 80 percent of which represented
sales and shipments to points outside the Commonwealth.'
We find that the Company is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Textile Workers Union of America is a labor organization affiliated
with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, admitting to member-
ship employees of the Company.
Local 30, Department of Woolen & Worsted Workers, is a labor
organization affiliated with the United Textile Workers of America
which, in turn, is affiliated with the American Federation of Labor,
admitting to membership employees of the Company.2
111. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
On April 12, 1944, the Company and the A. F. of L. executed a
contract to be in effect until April 12, 1946, and from year to year
1 Subsequent to the close of the hearing, the Company entered Into a supplementary
stipulation regarding the Company 's business . The stipulation is hereby made part of
the record In this proceeding.
2 At the hearing , the C. I. 0 contended that Local 30 had ceased to be a labor
organization we do not agree. The evidence shows that in November 1945, the Presi-
dent of the United Textile Workers of America informed the officers and members of the
Executive Board of Local 30 that their duties were being assumed by a trustee appointed
by him, and that no meetings were to be called and none of the Local's funds expended
unless authorized by the trustee Thereupon , the appointed trustee suspended one officer
and three board members , and requested the remaining officers and members of the
Board to carry on as they had been doing The latter group has been functioning ever
since that date. Thus it is clear from the record that Local 30 has conducted bargaining
conferences with the Company , the most recent one having occurred on January 9, 1946;
that Local 30 has continued to handle grievances with the Company , as heretofore;
that there are over 600 members still paying dues ; and that a monthly meeting of the
Local was held in December 1945 Accordingly , under all the circumstances, we find
that Local 30 is functioning as a labor organization within the meaning of section 2 (5)
of the Act. See Matter of White Bros . Smelting Corp ., 61 N. L. R. B. 340
1182 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
thereafter unless terminated as therein provided. Five supplemental
agreements to the April 12, 1944, contract were subsequently entered
into by the parties,3 each effecting changes in some of the provisions
of the 1944 contract. The last of these supplemental agreements,
dated October 18, 1945, and executed October 26, 1945, in addition
to effecting changes in the April 12, 1944, agreement, extended the
original contract, as supplemented and amended, to August 1, 1947.
By letter dated October 25, 1945, the C. I. O. advised the Company
that it represented a majority of the Company's employees, and
requested a reply before the "date on which [the Company's] present
agreement may be renewed or amended." The record establishes that
the letter was received by the Company on the morning of October
26, 1945, and was brought to the attention of a member of the com-
mittee representing Local 30 before the final execution of the sup-
plemental agreement of that date a By letter of the same date, the
Company thereupon informed the C. 1. 0. that it had negotiated and
agreed upon a supplemental agreement with the A. F. of L. on
October 18, 1945, which agreement included an extension to August
1, 1947. On October 31, 1945, the C. I. O. filed its petition herein.
The A. F. of L. contended at the hearing that the contract of
April 12, 1944, as amended by the fifth supplemental agreement, does
not expire until August 1, 1947, and is a bar to any representation
proceeding during the life of the contract. We find this contention
to be without merit. The Company was fully advised, before the
execution of the fifth supplemental agreement on October 26, 1945,
that a question of representation existed among its employees. It
is well settled that an agreement executed in the face of an unresolved
question concerning representation of which the parties had knowl-
edge will not be recognized as a bar to the present determination
of that question. Consequently, we find that the contract of April 12,
1944, which is about to expire, and the supplemental agreement of
October 26, 1945, do not preclude an election at this time.5
A statement of a Board agent, introduced into evidence at the
@ Federation of Woolen & Worsted Workers of America, and its subsidiary Local 30,
affiliated with United Textile Workers of America and American Federation of Labor,
were signatories to the original contract , whereas Department of Woolen & Worsted
Workers of the United Textile Workers of America , A. F. of L ., and Local 30 were sig-
natories to the last supplemental agreement. It is, however , apparent from the record
that Federation of Woolen & Worsted Workers of America changed its name to Depart-
ment of Woolen & Worsted Workers, and that the two groups are consequently identical.
* A member of the Committee testified at the hearing that , before the members of the
Committee signed the agreement , one of the officials of the A . F. of L., then present,
had a letter in his hand and explained that it was sent by the C. I. 0. to the Company
and was to the effect that the C. I. 0. was petitioning for an election.
b See Swift and Company, 64 N. L . It. B. 880 ; and The Mead Corporation, Heald Divi-
sion, 63 N. L. It. B. 1129.
MONOMAC SPINNING COMPANY 1183
hearing, indicates that the C. I. O. represents a substantial number
of employees in the unit hereinafter found appropriate."
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning
the representation of employees of the Company, within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
We find, substantially in accordance with the agreement of the
parties at the hearing, that all production and maintenance employees
of the Company, including section hands, but excluding office, labora-
tory, truck drivers and helpers, watchmen; executive, administrative.
foremen, overseers, second hands, and all or any 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 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
employees in the appropriate unit who were employed during the
pay-roll period immediately preceding the date 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 Re-
lations Act, and pursuant to Article III, Section 9, of National Labor
Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 3, as amended, it is
hereby
DIRECTED that , as part of the investigation to ascertain representa-
tives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Monomac Spin-
ning Company, Lawrence , Massachusetts , an election by secret ballot
6 The Field Examiner reported that the C. I. O. submitted 392 cards, and that there
are approximately 700 employees in the appropriate unit
The A. F. of L. relies on its April 12, 1944, contract, as amended, to establish it'
interest.
'Although the Company indicated at the hearing that it desired the exclusion of
watchmen from the appropriate unit, the stipulation of the parties failed to mention
watchmen However, in view of the fact that the contract of April 12, 1944, excluded
watchmen from its coverage , we shall exclude them from the appropriate unit
1184 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later than thirty (30)
days from the date of this Direction, under the direction and super-
vision 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 Regulations,
among employees 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 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
Textile Workers Union of America, C. I. 0., or by Local 30, Depart-
ment of Woolen & Worsted Workers of the United Textile Workers
of America, A. F. of L., for the purposes of collective bargaining, or
by neither.
CHAIRMAN HERZOG took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Direction of Election.