Reuben Gordon Shoe Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 11, 1950

89 N.L.R.B. 301 (N.L.R.B. 1950)

In the Matter Of REUBEN GORDON SHOE CO., INC.,. EMPLOYER and
BOOT & SHOE WORKERS UNION , LOCAL 141, AFL, PETITIONER
Case No. 1-RC-631.-Decided April 11, 1950
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before John H. Wood,
hearing officer of the National Labor Relations Board. 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 National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members
Houston and Styles].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
National Labor Relations Act.
2. The labor organizations named below claim to represent certain
,employees of the Employer.
3. The question concerning representation :
Since 1936 the Petitioner has had contracts with the Employer
covering its production employees. The latest of these contracts was
,executed on August 2, 1948, for a term of 3 years and is still in effect.
On January 11, 1950, the Petitioner filed the instant petition, asserting
that it is currently recognized by the Employer as the representative
-of its employees and desires certification under the Act. There is no
•contention in this case that the agreement between the Employer and
the Petitioner precludes the existence of a question concerning repre-
sentation, nor could such a contention be maintained. In the case of
General Box Company,l the Board stated that notwithstanding an em-
ployer's current recognition of a petitioner, a question concerning rep-
resentation is created if a petitioner, as in the instant case, asserts its
1 82 NLRB 678.
89 NLRB No. 40. 301
302 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
majority standing, expresses a desire to secure a certificate, and files a.
formal petition for certification with the Board.
We find, therefore, that a question affecting commerce exists con-
cerning the representation of employees of the Employer within the
meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.'
From the entire record in this case, including the briefs filed by
the Petitioner and the Intervenor,3 it appears that the only question
now in dispute is the effect that the possible certification of the Inter-
venor would have on the bargaining and contractual rights and duties
of the parties. While announcing its intention to hold the Employer
to the existing contract until its stated expiration date, regardless of'
the outcome of the election, the Petitioner contends that the question
of the legal effect on the contract of a certification of the Intervenor
is not now properly before the Board. The Employer's position is
that if the Petitioner insists on holding the Employer to the 1948
contract, the Employer will consider itself bound thereby.
The Intervenor contends, on the other hand, that certification would
vest it with all the bargaining and contractual rights of the Petitioner,-
and that this contention is supported by Board decisions.
. The Board has normally refrained from prejudging the effect of-
any certification it might issue on the future collective bargaining and
contractual status of the parties. This policy was restated by the-
majority of the Board in a recent case,4 where an election was directed
during the term of a contract among the employees covered by the
contract. The majority of the Board there said :
With regard to the duty of the Employer and the representative
of its employees to bargain now or in the future upon the basis
of the current or for a new contract, we do not believe it to be-
this Board's function, in a representation proceeding, to pass upon
this issue. We find it necessary to determine here only the,
question of representation as required by Section 9 (c) of the
Act. The impact of the resolution of that question upon the col--
lective bargaining duties and rights of the Employer, the em--
ployees, and the labor organizations must be determined by the
application of other provisions of the Act, in the light of a factual,
situation not now before us.
2 The 1948 contract, mentioned above, was not asserted by any party as a bar either to.
the petition or to the intervention of the Intervenor in this proceeding. Evidence was,
however, presented at the hearing as to whether the 3-year term of the 1948 contract
conformed to industry custom. Such evidence is relevant only to a determination whether
the contract is a bar to the Intervenor's participation in this proceeding, a matter which
is not here in issue. Accordingly, there is no need for us to consider such evidence, or to
make any finding thereon. i
'United Shoe Workers of America, CIO.
4 Boston Machine Works Company, 89 NLRB 59.
REUBEN GORDON SH6E CO., INC. 303
We therefore reject the Intervenor's request for a prejudgment by
the Board at this time of the legal impact of a possible certification of
'the Intervenor on the rights and duties of the parties in this case.
4. The following employees of the Employer constitute a unit ap-
propriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning
,of Section 9 (b) of the Act : All production employees at the Em-
ployer's Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, plant, excluding maintenance
employees,.office help, guards, watchmen, working foremen, working
foreladies, and other supervisors.5
DIRECTION OF ELECTION 6
As part. of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the
purposes of collective bargaining with the Employer, an election by
secret ballot shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later
than 30 days from the date of this Direction, under the direction and
supervision of the Regional Director for the Region.in which this
case was heard, and subject to Sections 203.61 and 203.62 of National
Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations, among the employees
in the unit found appropriate in paragraph numbered 4, above, who
were employed during the payroll -period immediately preceding the
date of this Direction of Election, including employees who did not
work during said payroll period because they were ill or on vacation
or temporarily laid off, but excluding those employees who have since
quit or been discharged for cause and have not been rehired or re-
instated prior to the date of the election, and also excluding employees
on strike who are not entitled to reinstatement, to determine whether
or not they desire to be represented, for purposes of collective bargain-
ing, by Boot & Shoe Workers Union, Local 141, AFL.
This unit - description was agreetl.to by the parties , and conforms substantially to the
unit for which the Petitioner has bargained with the Employer since 1936.
° By Order dated April 20, 1950, the Board granted the Intervenor , United Shoe Workersz,.,
of America
;"
CIO; iiermission to witi]draw Yta name from the ballot.