The Heminway and Bartlett Manufacturing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 30, 1948

80 N.L.R.B. 989 (N.L.R.B. 1948)

In the Matter of THE HEMINWAY AND BARTLETT MANUFACTURING
COMPANY, EMPLOYER and UNITED TEXTILE WORKERS OF AMERICA,
AFL, PETITIONER
Case No. 1-RC-625.Decided November 30,1948
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before a 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-man panel consisting of the undersigned Board
Members.*
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. On August 7, 1939, the Employer and Local No. 315 of the
Textile Workers Union of America, CIO, herein referred to as the
Intervenor, executed a collective bargaining agreement which pro-
vided for an initial term of 1 year and automatic renewal thereafter
from year to year, in the absence of written notice to modify or ter-
minate by either party 60 days before the anniversary date of the
agreement." No such notice has ever been given, orally or in writing,
by either party.
The Petitioner, by letter dated August 14, 1948, advised the Em-
ployer that it represented a majority of the Employer's employees
and requested the commencement of negotiations for a collective bar-
Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Gray.
The agreement was signed by The Hemnnway and Bartlett Silk Company, the name
by which the Employer was formerly known.
80 N. L. R. B., No. 149.
989
990 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
gaining agreement. The Employer, by letter dated August 17, 1948,
refused to recognize the Petitioner as bargaining agent.
The Employer and the Intervenor contend that their 1939 contract,
as automatically renewed, is still in effect and constitutes a bar to
this proceeding. The Petitioner contends that the contract does not
constitute a bar, inasmuch as the Intervenor is a defunct labor
organization.
Since the inception of the agreement, the Intervenor has neither
corresponded nor met with the Employer regarding grievances, wages,
or any other matters affecting the welfare of its members, nor has it
set up any grievance committee or shop committee, as provided for in
the agreement. Although the Employer has, from time to time,
granted wage increases and handled grievances, its action in each
case was the result of bargaining with its employees as individuals,
rather than with the Intervernor as representative.
The Intervenor has officers. The evidence, however, fails to show
that it carries on any of the regular functions of a labor organization,
such as the collection of dues or the holding of regular meetings.
The facts clearly indicate that the Intervenor is "defunct" as a bar-
gaining representative, insofar as the employees of this Employer are
concerned. To hold that this 1939 agreement, which the Intervenor
has not actively administered for 9 years, is, by automatic renewal, a
bar to this petition for the immediate determination of representatives
would, we believe, tend to defeat the purposes of the Act 2
We find that a question affecting commerce exists concerning the
representation of certain employees of the Employer, within the mean-
ing of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The parties stipulated and agreed at the hearing, and we find,
that all production and maintenance employees of the Employer in
its Watertown, Connecticut, thread plant, excluding executives, office
and clerical employees, watchmen and guards, laboratory and pro-
fessional employees, foremen, assistant foremen, and all other super-
visors, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining under Section 9 (b) of the Act.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
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
60 days from the date of this Direction, under the direction and super-
vision of the Regional Director for the Region in which this case was
2 Matter of Industrial Paper Stock Company, 66 N. L. R. B. 1185.
THE HEMINWAY AND BARTLETT MANUFACTURING COMPANY 991
heard, and subject to Sections 203.61 and 203.62 of National Labor
Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 5, as amended, among
the employees in the unit found appropriate in paragraph numbered
4, above, who were employed during the pay-roll period immediately
preceding the date of this Direction of Election, including employees
who did not work during said pay-roll 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 reinstated prior to the date of the election, and also exclud-
ing employees on strike who are not entitled to reinstatement, to deter-
mine whether they desire to be represented, for purposes of collective
bargaining, by United Textile Workers of America, AFL, or by Local
315 of the Textile Workers Union of America, CIO, or by neither.