Wolverine Shoe and Tanning Corp.

In the Matter Of WOLVERINE SHOE AND TANNING CORPORATION and UNITED SHOE WWWORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO Case No. R-4413.-Decided November 16, 1942 Jurisdiction : tanning, and shoe and glove manufacturing industry. Investigation and Certification of Representatives : existence of question: re- fusal to grant recognition until certification and determination of appropriate unit by the Board ; election necessary. Unit Appropriate for Collective Bargaining : all- production, maintenance, and warehouse employees of the Company's two shoe plants, but excluding assist- ant foremen and all higher supervisory employees, all clerical or, office em- ployees, factory clerical employees, salesmen, truck drivers, tannery employees, and power plant employees. Warner, Norcross and Judd, by Messrs. George S. Norcross, and Lawson E. Becker, of Grand Rapids, Mich., for the Company- Mr. Julius Crane, of Chicago, Ill., for the United. Mr. Philip Parr, of Detroit, Mich., for the Fur and Leather Workers., Mr. A. Sumner Lawrence, of counsel to the Board. DECISION - AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION STATEMENT OF THE CASE ,Upon a second amended' petition duly filed by United Shoe Workers of America (C. I. 0.), herein called the United, alleging that a question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representa- tion of employees of Wolverine Shoe and Tanning Corporation, Rock- ford, Michigan, herein called the Company, the National Labor Rela- tions Board provided for an appropriate hearing upon due notice be- fore Harold H. Cranefield, Trial Examiner. Said hearing was held at Grand Rapids, Michigan, on October 16 and 17, 1942. The Com- pany, the United, and International Fur and Leather Workers Union, C. I. 0.,' appeared, participated, and were afforded full opportunity to 'International Fur and Leather Workers Union, C. I. 0, which claimed substantial representation among the tannery employees, stated at the hearing that it' did not desire to participate in any election and that its only interest was to, resist the establishment of a bargaining unit which would include tannery woikers,,in which position it was sup- ported by the United and opposed by the Company. 45 N. L. R: B., No. 93. 620 WOLVERINE SHOE AND TANNING CORPORATION 621 be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues.. The Trial Examiner's rulings madeat the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Both the Company, and the United filed briefs which the Board has considered. Upon the entire record in the case the Board makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY Wolverine Shoe and Tanning Corporation, a Michigan corporation, has its principal office in Rockford, Michigan, where it owns and operates a tannery and two shoe plants. It also owns and operates a glove factory at Greenville, Michigan, some 18 or 20 miles distant from other factories at Rockford. During the year 1941, the Company purchased for use at its plants raw materials of total value of approximately $800,000, of which about 95 percent was purchased from sources outside the State of Michigan. During the same period, the Company's total sales of finished products amounted to approximately $5,000,000, of which approximately 95 percent represents shipments made to points outside the State of Michigan. H. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED United Shoe Workers of America, is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, admitting to member- ship employees of the Company. III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION On or about August 26, 1942, the United requested a conference with the Company for the purpose of bargaining collectively. Subse- quently at conferences held on September 10, 1942, and immediately thereafter, the United requested that the Company recognize it as exclusive representative of the shoe and warehouse workers of the Company's Rockford plants. The Company declined to grant recog- nition upon the ground that the proposed unit was inappropriate. A statement of the Regional Director introduced in evidence at the hearing shows that the United, represents a substantial number of employees in the unit hereinafter found appropriate.2 s The Regional Director reported that the United had submitted 274 signed member- ship application cards , of which 1 was dated January 1942, 34 dated August 1942 , 1 dated September 1942, and the rest undated ; that, of the signatures therein , all of which appeared to be genuine , 254 are the names of persons on the Company 's pay roll of September 9, 1942, containing a total of 397 names within the alleged appropriate unit. 622 DECISIONS OF NATIONAI, LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 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 National Labor, Relations Act. IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT The United contends that the appropriate unit should consist of all production, maintenance, and warehouse employees of the Company's two Rockford, Michigan, shoe plants, but excluding assistant foremen and all higher supervisory employees, all clerical or office employees (including factory clerical employees), salesmen, truck drivers, tan- ning employees, and employees engaged in the powerhouse. The Company, on the other hand, contends that the unit should be com- pany-wide and include employees of the Company's central office, warehouse, tannery, power plant, the two Rockford shoe factories, the Greenville glove plant, and truclZ drivers, excluding only assistant foremen and all higher supervisory employees and salesmen. The Company processes horsehide butts into leather and manu- factures therefrom shoes at its Rockford tannery and the two Rockford shoe factories. Work gloyes are made in the Greenville glove plant from leather tanned at the Rockford tannery. While the production and manufacturing operations of the Company are highly integrated and employees generally share numerous benefits and so- cial activities which the Company has promoted, the record discloses that skills involved in the shoe manufacturing operations are differ- ent from those required for the tannery and the glove factory. Employees are not frequently interchanged between the shoe fac- tories and the tannery and the glove factory. Both the membership and the present organization of the United are confined to those employees engaged in the manufacturing, warehousing, and mainte- nance processes of shoe production. Moreover, it appears that, in view of the difference in skills and the nature of the products in- volved, collective bargaining in the leather industry has recognized the separateness of tannery workers and shoe factory workers. Fur- thermore, the Company has within the past year dealt on a collective. basis with an informally constituted grievance committee representing only employees in the Rockford shoe factories, and has likOiise negotiated with an unaffiliated union confined to employees of the Greenville glove plant, without in either case at any time suggesting that collective bargaining relationships should be conducted on a more inclusive basis. It appears that the Fur and Leather Workers is presently attempting to organize the tannery employees. Under the circumstances, in view-of the fact that the United has limited its organization to the shoe plants and another union is claiming repre- sentation among the tannery workers, we find that employees in the WOLVERINE SHOE, AND TANNING CORPORATION 623 Rockford shoe plants constitute,a unit appropriate' for the purposes of collective bargaiiiing.3 There remain for consideration certain groups of employees within the geographical scope of the appropriate unit but as to whose inclusion or exclusion the parties are in dispute, namely, the em- ployees of the central office, the factory clerical-employees, the truck drivers, and the power plant employees. Of these groups, the em- ployees of the central office are ordinary o, ice clerical employees and will be excluded, in accordance with our usual custom, from- an ap- - propriate unit of production and maintenance employees. The same ground for exclusion is applicable to the factory clerical employees, who, though located in the shoe factories, are not actively engaged in production work and are concerned only with the-keeping of records and the computation of figures for the pay roll, which compu- tation, is relied upon exclusively by the Company in making wage payments. So far as the truck drivers are concerned, it appears that they have interests and problems 'different from those of the shoe employees, by reason whereof they will be excluded from the appro- priate unit. Finally, with respect to the power plant employees, the ' fact that they perform work not closely related to shoe pro- duction and are, moreover, ineligible to membership in the United, requires their exclusion from the appropriate unit. We find 'that all production, maintenance, and warehouse em- ployees of the Company's two Rockford, Michigan, shoe plants, but excluding assistant foremen and all higher supervisory employees, all clerical or office employees (including factory clerical employees), salesmen, truck drivers, tannery employees, and employees engaged in the powerhouse, 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 find. that the question concerning representation' which has arisen can best be resolved by an election .by secret ballot. For the purpose of determining eligibility to vote, the United requests the use of the pay roll as of the date of the hearing, upon the ground that the Company's operations and employment may be reduced in the near future. There is no evidence that curtailment is likely to occur, other than such as may arise from the usual short- ages of material due to wartime conditions, the extent of which shortages cannot be forecast under present ' circumstances. The s See Matter of Olczer Mach neiy Co, Baldwin Tuthill Division and Inter national Association of Machinists, Lodge No 475, affiliated with the A F of L , 39 N L R B 722 See also Matter of Greenway Wood Heel Co, Inc , and/or SsO.er J Laluinieie, Mary M. Lyons and Henry J Lalunaiere, d/b/a S & L Wood fleet Company and Heel Makers Federal Labor Union No 22714 (A F. of L ), 43 N. L R. B 752. 624 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Company contends that the usual eligibility date is proper. We find no reason to depart from our customary practice and shall direct that the persons eligible to vote in the election shall be those in the appropriate unit who were employed during the pay-roll period' immediately preceding the date of the Direction of Election 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 National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 2,, as amended, it is hereby DnmoTm that, as part of the investigation to determine repre- sentatives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Wolverine Shoe and Tanning Corporation, Rockford, Michigan, 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, under the - direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Seventh Region, acting in this matter as agent for the National Labor Rela- tions Board, and subject to Article III, Section 10, of said Rules and Regulations, among the employees in the unit found appropriate in Section IV, above, who were employed` by the Company during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of this Direction, including any such employees,who did not work during said 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 any who have since, quit or been discharged for cause, to determine whether or not they desire to be represented by United Shoe Workers of America, C. I. 0., for the purposes of collective bargaining. MR. WM. M. LEIsnRsoN took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Direction of Election.