Uxbridge Worsted Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 22, 1945

60 N.L.R.B. 1395 (N.L.R.B. 1945)

In the Matter Of UXBRIDGE WORSTED COMPANY, INC., ANDREWS MILL
and TEXTILE WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, C. I. O.
Case No. 1-R-2001.Decided March 22, 1945
Mr. Edward A. Robertson, of New York City, for the Company.
Messrs. Joseph C. Novo and Johan W. Laporte, of Providence, R. I.,
for the Union.
Mr. B. A. Leclaire, of Woonsocket, R. I.; for the Independent.
Miss Ruth E. Blie field , of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a petition duly filed by Textile Workers Union of America,
C. I. 0., herein called the CIO, alleging that a question affecting com-
merce had arisen concerning the representation of employees of Ux-
bridge Worsted Company, Inc., Andrews Mill, North Smithfield,
Rhode Island, herein called the Company, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board provided for an appropriate hearing upon due notice
before Robert H. Greene, Trial Examiner. Said hearing was held at
Providence, Rhode Island, on October 10, 1944. At the commence-
ment of the hearing the Trial Examiner granted a motion of Ameri-
can Independent Workers' Union of Andrews Mill, herein called the
Independent, to intervene. The Company, the CIO, and the Independ-
ent appeared and participated in the hearing. On December 15, 1944,
the Board of its own motion, issued an Order Reopening Record and
remanded the case to the Regional Director for the purpose of adduc-
ing evidence at a further hearing as to whether or not the duration
of the collective bargaining agreement between the Independent and
the Company is for a reasonable period in view of the duration of
contracts in the industry. Further hearing was held at Boston, Mas-
sachusetts, on January 30, 1945, before Robert E. Greene, Trial Exam-
iner. All parties were afforded full opportunity at both hearings to
be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to. introduce
evidence bearing on the issues. The Trial Examiner's rulings made
60 N. L. R. B., No. 243.
1395
1396 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
at the hearings are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
All parties were afforded opportunity to file briefs with the Board.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT .
1. THE BUSINESS OE• THE COMPANY
Uxbridge Worsted Company, Inc., is engaged, at its Andrews
Mill, North Smithfield, Rhode Island, which is the only plant here
involved, in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of woolen and
worsted cloth. During 1943 it manufactured a total of approxi-
mately 3,000,000 yards of cloth. Of this amount, approximately
946,000 yards of cloth, valued at approximately $1,800,000, were
shipped directly from the plant to points outside the-State of Rhode
Island. The balance was shipped to points within the State. The
total value of the goods manufactured during this period was ap-
proximately $4,900,000. During the same calendar year the Company
received from points outside the State of Rhode Island raw materials,
consisting principally of woolen and cotton yarns, valued at
approximately $431,000.
The Company admits that it is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
II: THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
It was stipulated at the hearing that Textile Workers Union of
America, C. I. 0., and American Independent Workers' Union of
Andrews Mill are labor organizations admitting to membership
employees of the Company.
III. THE ALLEGED QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The CIO requested the Company to recognize it as the exclusive
bargaining representative of the Company's employees. The Com-
pany stated, however, that it was already a party to a contract with
the Independent, and could not therefore bargain with any other
union until the term of that contract had expired.
A statement of the Field Examiner, introduced into evidence at
the hearing, indicates that the CIO represents a substantial number
of employees in the unit for which it petitions.'
I The Field Examiner reported that the CIO submitted 116 authorization and ledger
cards ; that the names of 64 persons appearing on the cards were listed on the Company's
pay roll-of September 12, 1944, which contained the names of 183 employees,in the unit
petitioned for ; and 11 cards were dated April 1944 , 2 cards were dated May 1944 , 2 cards
were dated June 1944 , 45 cards were dated July 1944, and 4 cards were undated.
UXBRIDGE WORSTED COMPANY, INC. 1397
The Company has recognized the Independent as the bargaining
representative of its employees since 1936.° In 1939 a consent elec-
tion was held by the Regional Director of the Board, which was won
by the Independent. Another consent election was held in 1943 in
which the Independent was opposed by the CIO, the petitioner herein,
and which was also won by the Independent. Subsequent to the
consent election in 1943, the Company and the Independent entered
into a collective bargaining agreement on October 15, 1943, which
agreement is urged by the Company and the Independent as a bar
to the present petition for an election of representatives. The con-
tract, which contains provisions for the maintenance of union mem-
bership as a condition of continued employment with the Company,
and for the check-off of union dues, is to continue in effect until
September 1, 1945, a period of 221/2 months, after which time it
may be renewed on a yearly basis, unless modified, changed, or
terminated by either party, after written notice 60 days prior to
any anniversary date of the contract.
The CIO contends that the contract between the Company and the
Independent, since it is for a term of nearly 2 years, is of unreasonable
duration, and hence no bar to a present determination of representa-
tives. We are not persuaded, however, that the term of the contract
in question is unduly prolonged. We customarily direct an election,
if we are presented with a proper petition therefor, after the first year
of a contract which is for an indefinite or unreasonably long period.-
Thus, we have frequently proceeded in the face of contracts for a term
of 3 years or more,3 and on occasion we have declined to withhold-a
determination of representatives where a 2-year contract was urged
as,a bar.4 It does not follow, however, that we regard all 2-year con-
tracts as unreasonable in duration.5 In the absence of satisfactory
proof that an effective 2-year contract runs counter to the well-estab-
lished custom in the industry, or is `otherwise unreasonable in term
under the circumstances of the particular case, we are presently of the
opinion that, in the interest of industrial stability, no investigation of
representatives should be undertaken until such contract is about to
2 Charges that the Independent was dominated by the Company were dismissed in 1939.
See Matter of Uxbridge Worsted Company , 11 N L. R B 333.
8 See Matter of Metro - Goldwyn -Mayer Studios, 7 N. L R B 662 ; Matter of Columbia
Broadcasting Corp. , 8 N L R . B 508; Matter of M. & J. Tracy , Inc., 12 N. L. R B 936;
Matter of Riverside d Fort Lee Ferry Co , 23 N L R. B 493 ; Matter of Wichita Union
Stockyards, Inc, 40 N L R B 369 ; Matter of Brewster Ideal Chocolate Company, 49 N. L.
R. B. 366 ; Matter of Mathieson Alkali Works , 55 N. L. R . B 1100 ; Matter of Chicago Curled
Hair Company, 56 N L R B 1674 . See also Matter of The Trailer Company of America,
51 N L It . B. 1106.
fSee Matter of Kahn & Feldman , Inc., 30 N. L. R . B. 294 ; Matter of Lewis Steel
Products Corp, 23 N L R B 793 ; Matter of Sutherland Paper Company , 55 N L It B 38.
E See Matter of Owens -Illinois Pacific Coast Co., 36 N. L. It. B. 990; Matter of American
Finishing Co., 50 N. L . R. B. 313.
11398 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
expire. In the instant case no such proof was made. The evidence
adduced at the second hearing, consisting of compiled data furnished
by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the Department of Labor per-
taining to collective bargaining agreements with employers in 'this
industry as well as the testimony of witnesses familiar with the prac-
tice of the three leading unions in the field," indicates that there is no
consistent prevailing custom in the woolen and worsted industry in
New England. Two of the unions representing employees in a large
number of establishments in that area prefer 1-year contracts, while
the third, the AFL organization, prefers 2-year contracts; and the
practice of both CIO and AFL unions has deviated on occasion from
their respective policies in this regard.7 Under the circumstances, we
conclude that the independent's contract with the Company is of rea-,
sona-ble duration, and we shall, accordingly, dismiss the petition
herein. The dismissal shall be without prejudice to the right of the
CIO to file a new petition at a reasonable time prior to the expiration
of the existing contract.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire
record in the case, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders
that the petition for investigation and certification of representatives
of employees of Uxbridge Worsted Company, Inc., Andrews Mill,
North Smithfield, Rhode Island, filed by Textile Workers Union of
America, C. I. 0., be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
'At the further hearing the assistant director of the Woolen and Worsted Division
of the United Textile Workers, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, herein
called 'the AFL, the Woolen and Worsted Director of the Textile Workers Union of
America, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations , and the secretary of the
Woonsocket Association of Manufacturers , Rhode Island, testified at length regarding the
practice of employers and unions in this industry in the States of Rhode Island , Massa-
chusetts , Connecticut , Maine, Vermont , and New Hampshire , with respect to the duration
of collective bargaining agreements.
7 The Independent Textile Workers of America , an unaffiliated union which holds
numerous contracts in the Woonsocket vicinity , contracts for 1-year terms ; the CIO
generally contracts for 1 -year , and the AFL makes 2 -year contracts as a general rule
There are a number of exceptions in the case of both the CIO and AFL , however. For
example , the CIO, the petitioner herein , presently has a 9 -month contract with the Barre
Wool Combing Company in Massachusetts , which is under the same management as-the
Andrews Mill, but the CIO's previous contracts with that Company ran for irregular
periods from 15 months to 2 years , the last contract prior to the current one having been
for 2 years.