Richard Young Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 6, 1945

64 N.L.R.B. 733 (N.L.R.B. 1945)

In the Matter of RICHARD YOUNG Co., KORN LEATHER CO., TRIMOUNT
LEATHER CO., CARR LEATHER CO., REGIS LEATHER CO., INC., T. J.
O'SHEA LEATHER CO., JOHN MCCARTHY & SONS, INC., HUNT-RANKIN
LEATHER CO., TWIN TANNERS, INC., VERZA TANNING Co., KERSTEIN
TANNING CO., KERSTEIN LEATHER CO., MORRILL LEATHER CO., WIL-
LIAM F. DUFFY & SON, NATHAN H. POOR CO., B. E. Cox LEATHER
CO., STRAUSS TANNING CO., HELBURN THOMPSON Co., LEACH-HECKEL
LEATHER CO., JOAN FLYNN & SONS, SLATTERY BROS. TANNING CO.,
RUSSELL-SIM TANNING CO., CREESE & COOK Co., and INTERNATIONAL
UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS AND FIREMEN, LOCAL No. 93, A. F. L.
and INTERNATIONAL FUR & LEATHER WORKERS UNION OF THE UNITED
STATES AND CANADA (CIO), LOCAL #21 (LEATHER DIVISION)
Case No. 1-RE-31.-Decided November 6, 1945
Mr. Samuel G. Zack, for the Board.
Messrs. Ropes, Gray, Best, Coolidge cC Rugg, by Mr. William F..
Sullivan, Jr., of Boston, Mass., for the Association and Members.
Mr. William F. Regan, of Boston, Mass., for the A. F. L.
Messrs. Grant cC Angoff, by Messrs. Sidney S. Grant cf Harold B.
Roitman, both of Boston, Mass., for the C. I. O.
Mr. David V. Easton, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a petition duly filed by Richard Young Co., Korn Leather Co.,
Trimount Leather Co., Carr Leather Co., Regis Leather Co., Inc., T. J.
O'Shea Leather Co., John McCarthy & Sons, Inc., Hunt-Rankin
Leather Co., Twin Tanners, Inc., Verza Tanning Co:, Kerstein Tan-
ning Co., Kerstein Leather Co., Morrill Leather Co., William F.
Duffy & Son, Nathan H. Poor Co., B. E. Cox Leather Co., Strauss.
64 N. L. R B., No 127.
733
734 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Tanning Company, all of Peabody, Massachusetts; Helburn Thomp-
son Co., Leach-Heckel Leather Co., John Flynn & Sons, Slattery Bros.
Tanning Co., and Russell-Sim Tanning Co., all of Salem, Massachu-
setts, and Creese & Cook Co., of Danvers, Massachusetts, all herein col-
lectively called the Members," alleging that a question affecting com-
merce had arisen concerning the representation of certain of their
employees, the National Labor Relations Board provided for all.
appropriate hearing before Samuel G. Zack 2 and George Bokat, Trial
Examiners . The hearing was held at Salem, Massachusetts, on August
20 and 21, 1945. The Members, the Association, International Fur &
Leather Workers Union of the United States and Canada (CIO),
Local #21 (Leather Division), herein called the C. I. 0., and Inter-
national Union of, Operating Engineers and Firemen, Local No. 93,
A. F. L., herein called the A. F. 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 is-
sues. The Trial Examiner's rulings made at the hearing are free from
prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. All parties were afforded
an opportunity to file briefs with the Board.
Upon the entire record in the case the Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE MEMBERS
All Members are engaged in one or more phases of the leather in-
dustry. Each of them receives a substantial amount of raw materials
used by it in its manufacturing operations from points outside the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts and causes a substantial amount of
its finished products to be shipped to points outside the Common-
wealth.3
Each of the Members concedes that it is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
H. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
International Fur & Leather Workers Union of the United States
and Canada (CIO), Local #21 (Leather Division), affiliated with the
Congress of Industrial Organizations, and International Union of
Operating Engineers and Firemen, Local No. 93, affiliated with the
' The Members comprise all employers in the Peabody-Salem -Danvers Massachusetts,
area, belonging to the Massachusetts Leather Manufacturers' Association, herein called
the Association, which employ licensed engineers and licensed firemen.
'Mr. Zack served as Trial Examiner for the first day's hearing in this proceeding.
Thereafter he acted as attorney for the Board.
Footnote 3 on p. 735.
RICHARD YOUNG CO. 735
American Federation of Labor, are labor organizations admitting to
`membership employees of the Members.
in. THE QUESTION CONCERNIF G REPRESENTATION
The Members are unwilling to bargain collectively with either the
C. I. 0. or A. F. L. as the representative of certain of their employees
in the absence of certification by the Board and a determination by
it of the appropriate unit or units;
A statement of an attorney for the Board, made at the hearing,
indicates that the C. I. 0. and A. F. L. represent a substantial num-
ber of employees in the unit hereinafter found appropriate .4
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning
the representation of employees of the Members, within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The A. F. L., the Association, and the Members assert that all
licensed engineers and licensed firemen engaged by all the Members
' The following chart Indicates the approximate total value of purchases and sales made
by the Members , and the percentage of such purchases and sales received from or shipped
to points outside the Commonwealth of Massachusetts . The sales and purchases of the
Members are in excess of the figures listed.
Name of Member
Value of
annual
purchases
Percentage of
value of pur-
chases received
from points
outside Com-
monwealth of
Massachusetts
Value of
annual
sales
Percentage of
value of annual
sales shipped
to points out-
side Common-
wealth of
Massachusetts
Richard Young Co_______________________ $100 , 000 85 $100,000 75
Korn Leather Co_________________________ 100 , 000 90 100, 000 90
Trimount Leather Co____________________ 100 , 000 100 100,000 80
Carr Leather Co_________________________ 100 , 000 90 100,000 70
Regis Leather Co , Inc __________________ 22,000 10 100,000 30
T.J. O'Shea Leather Co_ _______________ 100,000 80 100,000 . 95
Inc_____________John McCarthy & Sons 50,000 20 100,000 70,
Hunt-Rankin Leather 0 -_____________ 1,000,000 70 1,800,000 80
Twin Tanners , Inc_______________________ 100 , 000 50 200,000 60
Verza Tanning Co_______________________ 100,000 75 1,250,000 30
Kerstem Tanning Co____________________ 100, 000 50 1 , 000 000 80
Kerstem Leather Co ---------------------- 100, 000 70 200, 000 80
Morrill Leather Co_______________________ 100,000 100 100,000 50
William F Duffy & Son_________________ 25,000 50 100,000 95
Nathan H . Poor Co ______________________ 100,000 95 300,000 95
B E Cox Leather Co____________________ 100 . 000 50 100,000 2
Strauss Tanning Co______________________ 50,000 50 75,000 75
HelburnThompson Co------------------ 100,000 95 100,000 90
Leach -Heckel Leather Co________________ 50 , 000 75 100,000 85
John Flynn & Sons___ __________________ 100,000 80 100,000 80
Slattery Bros Tanning Co _______________ 100,000 60 100,000 80
Russell-Sim Tanning Co_________________ 100,000 75 500,000 50
Creese & Cook Co_______________________ 100,000 95 100,000 90
4 The Board 's attorney stated that the C. I. 0. submitted 38 designations and there are
93 employees in the unit which we hereinafter find appropriate . He further stated that
the interest of the A . F. L. in this proceeding is predicated upon recently expired collective
bargaining agreements with the Members.
736 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
comprise a single appropriate unit . The C . I. 0. contends that the
licensed engineers and licensed firemen employed by each of the
Members constitute separate appropriate units.
As found in the Advance Tanning case ,5 following a general strike
in 1933 among employees in the leather industry in the Peabody-
Salem-Danvers , Massachusetts , area, their employers banded together
and formed the Association . 6 The Association was created for the
purpose of negotiating "uniform terms and conditions of employment
for the leather workers ." It operates pursuant to bylaws subscribed
to by its membership and maintains a permanent office in Peabody,
Massachusetts , at which it employs a full -time staff.
From the conclusion of the general strike in 1933 until the spring
of 1944, the Members, by separate written or oral agreements , recog-
nized the A. F. L. as the collective bargaining representatives of their
licensed engineers and licensed firemen . However, since at least 1937,
the A. F. L. and all Members have been closely linked together by
the Association which, the record discloses , has "participated in
practically all . . . negotiations " between the A. F. L. and the Mem-
bers, kept all written agreements resulting from these negotiations on
file, maintained records of wages paid to the various classifications
of engineers and firemen, and acted as a representative of the Mem-
bers in dealings with the A. F. L., as well as before arbitration tribu-
nals , and the War Labor Board. In addition, the Association has
frequently acted as a conduit for communications between the A. F. L.
and the Members , made arrangements for contract negotiations on
behalf of the Members , and sponsored "consultations" among the
Members during these negotiations , at which time a common policy
was determined . As a result of the activities of the Association, the
contracts executed by the Members and the A. F. L. achieved sub-
stantial uniformity, Members having either agreed to abide by the
terms of the agreement then being negotiated or adopted terms sub-
stantially similar to those of prior agreements . Thus, in effect, the
A. F. L. in its negotiations with the individual Members, was , because
of the participation of the Association , negotiating with all Members
upon an Association -wide basis.
This was demonstrated when, in the spring of 1944, while matters
in dispute between 11 of the Members and the A. F. L. were pending
before the Regional War Labor Board,7 a general strike of licensed
e Matter of Advance Training Co , et al , 60 N. L R. B. 923.
Actually, the Association was originally formed some time after 1918, but became
inactive until its revival in 1933 Employers in the leather industry in the vicinity of
the Peabody - Salem-Danvers area are also members of the Association
' Case No. 11-5899-D.
RICHARD YOUNG CO. 737
firemen and engineers employed by the Members was called.,, Shortly
after the termination of the strike, which lasted a few days, the Re-
gional Board issued a decision which, by agreement of the A. F. L.,
the Members and the Association, was made effective not only for the
firemen and engineers of the 11 Members directly involved, but also
for the firemen and engineers of all other Members.
During the general strike of 1944, the A. F. L. proposed that the
Members formally bargain with it upon an Association-wide basis.
Because of a pending controversy concerning the production workers,9
however, negotiations concerning the proposal were postponed until
that matter was settled. Meanwhile, the A. F. L. permitted all con-
tracts between it and individual Members to terminate without further
negotiations in order to pave the way for the formalization of existing
relations by the execution of a single multiple-employer agreement.
In early April 1945, the A. F. L. renewed its request to negotiate with
the Members on behalf of the engineers and firemen in a formal Associ-
ation-wide unit. On April 23, 1945, the Members specifically author-
ized the executive committee of the Association to enter into such nego-
tiations. But before these negotiations actually commenced, the
C. I. 0., by a letter addressed to the Association dated May 7, 1945,
asserted that it "represents all of the firemen and engineers in the
Association factories," and requested a meeting "with your Association
to negotiate a contract for these workers." Subsequently the Associa-
tion filed the petition herein.
The C. I. O. has conducted negotiations through the Association
with the leather employers in the Peabody-Salem-Danvers, Massa-
chusetts, area, since 1933. Although it bargained with these employers
for the production workers through a committee of the Association,
such bargaining did not attain fruition until the execution of contracts
between the indiivdiial Members and the C. I. O. It contended in the
Advance Tanning case, and we found, that this pattern of collective
bargaining, resulting in individual but substantially identical con-
tracts between the C. I. O. and members of the Association, constituted
collective bargaining upon an association-wide basis. In our opinion
there is no material difference between this course of collective bar-
gaining, and that which has taken place between the A. F. L. and the
Members. As the representative of its membership, the Association
has played the leading role in each. In both patterns it was antici-
pated that the results of negotiations would be placed into operation
upon a multiple-employer basis, and from both contracts ensued be-
8 The strike was called , apparently , because of delay in the processing of the matters
before the Regional Board.
See Matter of Advance Tanning Co , supra.
670417-46-vol 64-48
'738 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tween individual members and the labor organizations involved. That
no great difference exists between these relationships was recognized
by the C. I. O. when on May 7, 1945, it made its original demand upon
the Association with respect to the employees involved herein, seeking
an Association-wide unit.
Accordingly, we find that all licensed engineers and licensed fire-
men employed by the Members constitute a single 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 em-
ployees in the appropriate unit who were employed during the pay-
roll period immediately preceding the date of the Direction of Elec-
tion 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 Relations
Act, and pursuant to Article III, Section 9, of the 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 Richard Young
Co., Korn Leather Co., Trimount Leather Co., Carr Leather Co., Regis
Leather Co., Inc., T. J. O'Shea Leather Co., John McCarthy & Sons,
Inc., Hunt-Rankin Leather Co., Twin Tanners, Inc., Verza Tanning
Co., Kerstein Tanning Co., Kerstein Tanning Co., Morrill Leather Co.,
William F. Duffy & Son, Nathan H. Poor Co., B. E. Cox Leather Co.,
Strauss Tanning Company, all of Peabody, Massachusetts; Helburn
Thompson Co., Leach-Heckle Leather Co., John Flynn & Sons, Slat-
tery Bros. Tanning Co., Russell-Sim Tanning Co., all of Salem, Massa-
chusetts, and Creese & Cook Co., of Danvers, Massachusetts, an elec-
tion 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 First Re-
gion, 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 the 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
RICHARD YOUNG CO. 739
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 any 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 repre-
sented by the International Fur & Leather Workers Union of the
United States and Canada (CIO), Local #21 (Leather Division),
affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, or by the
International Union of Operating Engineers and Firemen, Local No.
93, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining, or by neither.
MR. GERARD D. REILLY took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Direction of Election.