U.S. Shoe Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 25, 1942

43 N.L.R.B. 637 (N.L.R.B. 1942)

In the Matter of U. S. SHOE CORPORATION and INDEPENDENT SHOE
WORKERS OF CINCINNATI, OHIO
Case No. R-4011.-Decided August 25,19/
Jurisdiction : shoe manufacturing industry.
Investigation and Certification of Representatives : existence of question: re-
fusal to accord petitioner recognition in face of conflicting claims of, rival
organization ; contract which was in existence for one year, as extended, held
no bar, where time period of extension was not disclosed and no party plead
it as a bar; election necessary.
Unit Appropriate for Collective Bargaining : production and maintenance em-
ployees, with specified exclusions ; employees of receiving, shipping, and main-
tenance departments, and floor help, included, where previous appropriate unit
included them and no reason appeared to change prior unit.
Frost di Jacobs, by Mr. Cornelius J. Petzltold, of Cincinnati, Ohio,
for the Company.
Mr. Joseph A. Roach, of Cincinnati, Ohio, for the Independent.
Mr. George Martin, of Greenhills, Ohio, for the United.
Mr. Robert E. Tillman, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
I STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon petition duly filed by Independent Shoe Workers of Cincin-
nati, Ohio, herein called the Independent, alleging that a question
affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation ofem-
ployees of U. S. Shoe Corporation, Cincinnati, Ohio, herein called the
Company, the National Labor Relations Board provided for an appro-
priate hearing upon due notice before Thomas E. Shroyer, Trial
Examiner. Said hearing was held at Cincinnati, Ohio, on July 3,
1942. The Company, the Independent, and United Shoe Workers of
America, affiliated with the C. I. 0., herein called the ,United, ap-
peared, participated, and were afforded full opportunity to be heard,
to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence
bearing on, the issues. The Trial Examiner's rulings made at the
hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
43"N. L R B, No. 91.
637
638 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. TIIE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
U. S. Shoo Corporation, an Ohio corporation, has its principal
place of business in Cincinnati, Ohio, where it is engaged in the manu-
facture of women's shoes. Approximately 75 to 80 percent of the
raw materials used by the Company comes from outside the State of
Ohio. Approximately 85 to 90 percent of the Company's finished
products is sent to points outside the State of Ohio. During the fiscal
year ending November 30, 1941, the sale of products produced by the
Cincinnati plant totaled approximately $2,500,000.
The Company admits that it is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
IT. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Independent Shoe Workers of Cincinnati , Ohio, is- an unaffiliated
labor organization. It admits to membership employees of the Com-
pany. .
United Shoe Workers of America is a labor organization affiliated
with the Congress of Industrial Organizations . It admits to mem-
bership employees of the Company.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The parties stipulated, and we find, that a question concerning
representation has arisen in that on and after December 23, 1941, the
Independent requested recognition of the Company, and the request
was denied because the United was also making claims of the Com-
pany.
On September 20, 1940, the United and the Company entered into a
consent election agreement. Pursuant to the agreement, an election
was conducted in which the United received a majority of'the votes
cast. Subsequently, the Company and the United entered into an
oral bargaining agreement covering the employees in the consent elec-
tion unit. This agreement was to operate for a period of 1 year
beginning January 1, 1941, with automatic renewal from year to
year thereafter, unless either party gave written notice to the other
thirty (30) days prior to the expiration of any yearly period of a
desire to change it. The record is not clear as to the present status
of the agreement. It appears that the agreement was extended by
the contracting parties on December- 31, 1941. The time-period of the
extension is not disclosed. Neither the Company nor the United
U. S. SHOE CORPORATION 639
pleads the agreement as a bar to this proceeding. In view of these
facts, we find that the contract as extended is no-bar to a'present
investigation of the question concerning representation.
The United stated that on June 23, 1942, it filed an appeal from
the refusal of the Regional Director to issue a complaint on charges
of unfair labor practices filed against the Company by the United.
On August 21, 1942, this appeal was dismissed. -
A statement of a Field Examiner, introduced in evidence at the
hearing, indicates that the Independent represents a substantial
number of the employees in the unit hereinafter found to be ap-
propriate.1
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
At the hearing, the Independent proposed as the appropriate unit
the same unit which the Uiuited and the Company had established
in 1940 in their consent election agreement. This agreement set up,
the following unit :
All production employees at the Norwood, Ohio, plant of the
Company, exclusive of foremen, assistant foremen ,2 and super-
visors in charge of any class of labor, office and clerical -workers,.
watchmen, time-keepers, ticket writers, pay-roll clerks, checkers,,
truck drivers, employees in the purchasing department, and pat-
tern room workers. The phrase "production employees;" in-
cludes employees in the stork department, shipping department
and maintenance department, floor help, and crowners.
The Company agreed with the Independent that this unit was still
appropriate., The United, on the other hand, no longer approved this
old unit. It now desires to exclude the following 4 groups of em-
ployees in addition to the other exclusions: receiving department,,
shipping department, maintenance department, and floor help.
Employees in the disputed categories voted in the consent election
in 1940 and were covered by the oral contract between the Company
'The Field Examiner stated that the Independent submitted to him 409 applications
for membership cards, all beating 'apparently- genuine original signatures ; that 344 of
the cards bore names of persons whose names appeared on the Company's pay roll for
January 9, 1942, which listed 554 employees in the unit hereinafter found to be appio-
prmte, and that of the 344 cards, 71 were undated and the remainder were dated between
December 22, 1941, and April 17, 1942
The United submitted no cards, apparently relying upon the.contiact which it has
or has had with the Company
2The Independent stated that the terms "foiemen" and "assistant foremen" also has,
reference to foreladies and assistant foieladies.
,640 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD -
and the United. In February 1942, the United conducted a "check-off
election" in which, according to uncontradicted testimony of witnesses
for the Independent, the same employees voted as were eligible to vote
in the consent election.
As regards all'the disputed categories, the United contends that it
was a mistake to have included them in the consent-election unit,
since they have neither joined the United nor, made any attempt to be
represented for the purposes of collective bargaining. The United,
however, did not deny that it had attempted to'orgirnize these em-
ployees. In general, the United would exclude shipping, receiving,
and maintenance department employees as non-production employees,
and would exclude floor help as supervisory or confidential employees.
We have examined the record closely and are of the opinion that
the United has not shown sufficient reason to justify any alteration 'of
the 1940 unit. The receiving, shipping, and maintenance department
employees comprise groups customarily included in production and
maintenance units, and the record does not support the contention of
the United that those employees designated as "floor help" are engaged
by. the Company in either a confidential or a supervisory capacity.
We find that all, production and maintenance employees at the
Norwood, Ohio, plant of the Company, including employees of the
receiving -department and the shipping department, and floor help,
but excluding foremen, assistant foremen, supervisors in charge of
any class of labor, office and clerical workers, watchmen, timekeepers,
ticket writers, pay-roll clerks, checkers, truck drivers, employees in
the purchasing department, and pattern room workers, 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 cjuestion 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 our Direction of Elec-
tion, subject to the limitations mind additions set forth therein.
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, 49 Stat. 449, and pursuant to Article III, Section 8, of National
Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 2, as amended,
it is hereby
U. S. SHOE CORPORATION 641
DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation to ascertain representa-
tives for the purposes of collective bargaining with U. S. Shoe Cor-
poration," Cincinnati, Ohio, 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 of Election, under the direction and
supervision of the Regional Director for the Ninth Region, acting
in this matter as agent for the National Labor Relations Board, and
subject to Article III, Section 9, of said Rules and Regulations, among
all employees of the' Company in the unit found appropriate in Sec-
tion IV, above, who were employed during the pay-roll period im-
mediately preceding the date of this Direction, including employees
who did not work during such pay-roll period because they were-ill
or on vacation or in the active military service or training of the
United States, or temporarily laid off, but excluding those employees
who have quit or been discharged for cause, to determine whether they
-desire to be represented by Independent Shoe Workers of Cincinnati,
Ohio, or by United Shoe Workers of America, 'affiliated with the
C. I. 0., for the purposes of collective bargaining, or by neither.
481039-42-vol. 43-41