Craddock-Terry Shoe Corp.

In the Matter Of CRADDOCK-TERRY SHOE CORPORATION and UNITED SHOE WORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL No. 90, AFFILIATED WITH THE CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS Case No. R-4251.Decided March 26, 1943 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION i AND CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES On October 2, 1942, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, issued a Decision and Direction of Election in the above=entitled proceeding.' Pursuant to the Direction of Election, an election by secret,ballot was conducted on October 22, 1942, under the direction and supervision of the Acting Regional Director for the Fifth Region (Baltimore, Maryland). On October 26, 1942, the Acting Regional Director, acting pursuant to Article III, Section 10, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 2, as amended, issued and duly served upon the parties an Election Report. As to the balloting and its results, the Acting Regional Director reported as follows : Total on eligibility list----------------------------------- 2; 205 Total ballots cast---------------------------------------- 1,974 Total, ballots challenged---------------------------------- 1 Total blank ballots------------ -------------------------- 9 Total void ballots---------------------------------------- . 3, Total, valid votes counted--------------------------------- 1,961 Votes cast for United Shoe Workers of America,-Local No. 90 (C. I. a) --- -------- ----------- ----------------------- 699 Votes cast for Boot and Shoe Workers Union, Local 441 (A. F. of L.)--------------------------------- - --------- 1,193. Votes cast for Neither Union------------------------------ 69 On November 5, 1942, the United Shoe Workers of America, Local No. 99, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, herein called the United, filed an Election Protest, in which it alleged, ,inter alia, (1) that although the contract of the Boot and" Shoe Work- ers Union, Local 441, herein called the A. F. of L., expired on Septem- 144 N. L.R.B 738. 48 N. L. R. B., No. 82., 651 652 'DECISIONS OF NATIONAL( LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ber 1, 1942, more than a month prior to the election conducted by the Board in this case, the Company proceeded thereafter to recognize the A. F.'of L., as bargaining agent and granted to A. F. of L. rep- resentatives and members privileges and benefits of .an exclusive bar- ^gaining agency while denying any of'these benefits to,the United; ,(2) on every grievance the Company insisted on the presence of the A. F. of L. room representative; (3) officers of the A. F. of L. were permitted to leave their jobs and move about the factory during working hours, and to post notices on bulletin boards calling meetings; (4) during this same period, the United was not permitted to post notices or to engage in any of these activities; and (5) during all of this time, there was no contract in effect which justified any such discrimination. On December 30,' 1942, the Regional Director, issued his Report on Objections to Election in which he reported that, the objections of the United raised substantial and -material issues with respect to the conduct of the ballot, and recommended that the Board direct a hearing on said objections. On January 13, 1943, the A. F. of L. filed Objections to the Regional Director's Report on Objections to Election. On January 15, 1943, it appearing that the Objection set forth in paragraph 4 2 of the Election Protest filed by the United raised substantial and material issues with respect to the-conduct of the ballot, the Board ordered a hearing on said objection. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held on January 27, 1943, at Lynchburg, Virginia, before Thomas S. Wilson, Trial Examiner. The Board, the Company, the United, and the A. F. of L. appeared, participated, -and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing upon the issues. During the hearing, the United made two offers of proof with regard to company assistance to the A. F. of L. in 1937, and in 1942, shortly after the United began organizing the Company's employees. The Trial Examiner, in view of the definite limitation of the Board's order with regard to the testimony to be -adduced at the hearing,3, rejected the offers of proof. The Trial Examiner's ruling is hereby affirmed. At the hearing,,the United requested leave to take the deposition of Wayne D. Spettigue, an organizer for the United, relating to two alleged telephone conversa! tions that he had with a company official with regard to the Coln- -pany's alleged favoritism to the A. F. of L. The Trial Examiner reserved ruling. On February 3, 1943, the United filed with the Board a written • application for an order directing taking of the deposition of Spettigue with regard to said telephone conversations. 2 Paragraph 4 contained the allegations heretofore set forth in the text. The order directed that a hearing beheld on'paragraph 4, only of the-Election Protest. CRADDOC'K-TERRY SHOD CORPORATION, 653 The application is ' hereby denied. The Trial Examiner's rulings' made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. On February 3, 4, and 9, 1943, the Company,' the A. F. of•L,, and the )United; respectively,, filed' briefs, .and:'oii 1 February. 11, .1943; the A. F. of L. filed a reply brief, which the Board has considered. Upon the entire record in the case, the Election Report, the Elec- tion Protest, the Report on Objections, the Objections to the Regional Director's Report on Objections, and the record previously made, the Board makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT The evidence adduced at the hearing with respect to paragraph 4 of the United's objections may be 'discussed, under -the following headings : ' . 1. The Company's alleged insistence on the presence of A. F. of L. room representatives on grievances; 42. The Company's alleged granting of permission to A. F. of L. officers to leave their jobs and move about the factory and electioneer while denying these privileges to the United officers; and 3. The Company's alleged granting of permission to the A. F. of L. to post meeting notices on bulletin boards. 1. The Company's alleged insistence on the presence of A. F. of L. room representatives on grievances For 8 years prior to September 1, 1942, the A. F. of L. had been the bargaining agent for all the production and maintenance em- ployees' at the Company's three ,plants in and around Lynchburg, Virginia. On September 1, 1942, the collective bargaining contract between the Company and the A. F. of L. expired. This contract provided for representatives in each department of the plants. These representatives handled grievances with 'the Company for the em- ployees, and were known as room representatives. On July 20, 1942, 2 days after the United filed with the Board a petition for investigation and certification in this proceeding, the manufacturing director of the Company and its personnel manager sought advice from the Regional Director. According to the undis- puted testimony of these company officials, the advice which they re- ceived was to continue to treat the A. F. of L. as the bargaining agent during the period the contract was in existence, and thereafter to be neutral with regard to the organizations. A few days after receiving this advice the personnel manager met with the supervisory personnel, including foremen,' at. each 'of the three :plants.:andr'instructe&them that they were to be neutral with respect to the two organizations. 654 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATION'S BOARD It is undisputed, however, that the Company gave no orders at this or any subsequent time regarding the handling of grievances.subse- quent to the expiration of the contract. (a) According to the testimony of Nellie Wilkens, a fancy stitcher, immediately following September 1, 1942, Wilkens attempted to take up a grievance with Johnson, her instructor, who told her, "I would rather, you would go to Marian Finch [A. F. of L. room representa- tive] about it." Wilkens did not see Finch, and the matter was dropped.. Johnson did not testify. (b) During the period between September 1, 1942, and October 22, 1942 (the date of the election), Grace V. Burgess, another fancy stitcher, went to Holt, the superintendent, about a personal matter. Burgess' testimony was uncontradicted that Holt first asked her whether Ollie Ballard, the A. F. of L. room representative, was going to be present; when he learned that the complaint was personal and did not•concern,her work, he stated that it would not be necessary for Ballard to be present. ' Upon cross-examination, however, Burgess admitted that on no occasion since September 1 did she have any grievance as to which the Company insisted upon Ballard's presence_ Ballard testified, without contradiction, that although she took up a, grievance following September 1, 1942, with her foreman on behalf of herself and the employees doing the same work, she was requested by the girls to represent them and that she informed her foreman that she was not taking up the grievance' as a room ; epresentative1. (c) After the expiration of the contract a grievance arose involving five edgesetters. The grievance, concerned a job available in another department which the edgesetters believed should be given to one of them instead of to Bell, a new employee. James R. Bryant, one of the edgesetters involved, testified that a conference, between Bell, Car- rington Lawhorn, theA. F. of L. room representative in Bell's depart- ment, Walter Elder, the A. F. of L. room representative in, Bryant's department, J. H. Ballard, superintendent of the plant, and Tucker Thurmond, the Company's personnel director, was held, to which the edgesetters were not invited. According to Bryant, Elder and Law- horn were also present at another conference held at noon on the,same day, to which the five edgesetters were invited. The five edgesetters objected to the presence of the room representatives, and Bryant par- ticularly objected to the presence of Elder. Bryant further testified that over his objection the Company's manufacturing director told him to go into the conference and that Ballard said, "You know we- have an agreement with him that, we must accept any of them." Elder testified that Charley Knowles, one of the edgesetters, asked him to take up the grievance with the Company on behalf of the edgesetters, and that Elder spoke to Ballard about it. According 'to CRADDOCK-TERRY SHOE CORPORATION 655 Elder's testimony, Lawhorn invited him to the morning conference and explained to him that Bell had requested Lawhorn to represent him and that he desired Elder's presence. Elder stated that he at- tended both conferences, although he knew that he could not appear as a room representative; and because of this, did not participate in the discussions at either conference but merely sat through the con- ferences in silence. Thurmond testified that Lawhorn requested Elder's presence at the morning conference and that Thurmond therefore invited him; and that he requested Elder and Lawhorn to be present at the noon conference solely for the, purpose of confirming his statement to the edgesetters that the Company had done -everything possible with regard to the grievance. (d) About 1 week prior to the hearing, according to the testimony of Wilkens, the girls in her department desiring a time study on a certain job, went to Marian Finch and requested her to represent them. Finch said that she would prefer that one of the group present the application to the foreman, and when pressed, finally stated that she could no longer represent them. Finch testified that one of the operators asked her to apply for the time study and that upon in- quiry she found. that the time study had already been applied for, and that it was, therefore, unnecessary to take up the matter. Upon the foregoing testimony it is apparent that in no instance did the Company insist, as alleged by the United, upon the presence of A. F. of L. room representatives, as such, on the grievances set out above. This also appears to be true with respect to the grievances of the iedgesetters, since the testimony indicates that Elder was re- quested by one of the edgesetters to take up the grievance on their behalf and that, although he was present at both conferences, Elder did not participate in the discussions.' Neither Lawhorn nor Bell testified, but it appears from Elder's uncontradicted testimony that Lawhorn'was requested by Bell to represent him and that Bell also requested Elder's presence at the morning conference. Although it is admitted by the Company that Elder and Lawhorn were invited to the noon conference, Thurmond's testimony, which is uncontra- ' dicted, indicates that his reason for inviting them was to confirm his statement that the Company had done everything it could to settle the grievance. It is understandable that Thurmond might desire the presence of two responsible employee witnesses who could support' his statements. In any event, it is clear that employees have the right to request others to represent them on grievances. We conclude, there- fore, that the allegation that the Company insisted upon the presence of A. F. of L. room representatives on grievances is not supported by, the evidence. 656, DECISIONS OF' NATIONAL LABOR RELAT'IONS1 BOARD 2. The Company's alleged granting of permission to,A. F. of L. officers to leave their jobs and move about the factory and electioneer while denying these privileges to the United officers It appears from'the record that both the A. F. of L. and the United members, who testified, were instructed by the Company, prior to the election, not to leave their machines and move about the factory talking to other employees; United witnesses testified as follows : (a) According to the testimony of Wilkens, Essa Hodges, an A. F. of L. member,.went around in Wilkens' department talking to em- ployees, collecting dues, and getting cards signed for the A. F. of L., and that Collins, the foreman, did not stop Hodges. Hodges ad- mitted that she did campaign for the A. F. of L. during working hours, but testified that Collins reprimanded her several times. Wil- hens further stated that she observed Robert B. Ricketts, president of the A. F. of L., in her'department practically every day for a period of a week, talking to the girls, and that Collins did not reprimand 'them. With regard to , her own activity, Wilkens testified that at lunch time one day she asked an employee to vote for the United, and that she had handed out United leaflets in front of the plant. (b) John Albert Wilmer testified that during his lunch hour one day he distributed a United pamphlet; that the next day his foreman reprimanded him and that he (Wilmer) thereupon ceased such activity. (c) Grace M. Diuguid, recording secretary for the A. F. of L., according to the testimony of Grace V. Burgess, talked to the girls practically every day during working hours. Diuguid admitted that she campaigned for the A. F. of L., but testified that she confined her activity to lunch time and in the morning before working 'hours. Burgess admitted that she and two others, of whom Diuguid was one. were reprimanded by their foreman for alleged electioneering, but stated that Diuguid nevertheless continued her activity. Burgess, also testified that she observed Duncan, an employee in the cutting department, come into her department on one occasion, pass out A. F. of L. sample ballots, and inform the girls how to vote. (d) Cecil Nash testified that he saw A. F. of L. officers come into his department and confer with Ricketts. A. F. of L. witnesses testified as follows : (e) According to Coleman W. Floyd's testimony, Thelma Hunter, a United member, placed inside the door of the lasting room a hand- ful of mimeographed United leaflets with regard to the resignation of an employee from the A. F. of L.; and on another occasion a notice advertising a United meeting was passed down the production line. Floyd also testified that Pascal, a United member, came into his room CRADDOCK-TEIRRY SHOE CORPORATION 657 practically every day during working hours, going from machine to machine campaigning for the United, and that, although Floyd's fore- man "threw him out twice," Pascal kept coming back. (f) Ollie Ballard testified that there was a great deal of campaign ing during working hours by the United. She admitted, however, that she only got a "whiff" of it because when she would get close to the girls they would "hush up." ,(g) Burgess and Rachel Coleman, another United member, accord- ing to Dora Johnson's testimony, asked Johnson during working hours to join the United, and Coleman solicited her to sign a United card. (h) 'Ricketts admitted that he visited the stitching room many times, sometimes remaining there after that department's lunch hour, and was asked twice to leave by an instructor who told Ricketts that it was time to go to work. He further admitted that he passed out literature for the A. F. of L. during working hours. When Boswell, his foreman, asked whether he had passed out this literature, Ricketts told him, "Yes I passed it out. I had it wrapped up. in rags and I was passing it out." Ricketts stated that Boswell told him that no literature was to be passed out and no electioneering carried on, and told him not to do it again. It is evident from the above testimony that the Company did at- tempt, without apparent discrimination, to prevent electioneering activity during working hours. It is obvious, however, that both or- ganizations with equal impunity disregarded the admonitions of supervisory employees and solicited and electioneered' whenever pos- sible. In a heated and strenuous campaign some such incidents are inevitable. On the whole record, it cannot be concluded that the Com- pany made any distinction between the organizations in the enforce- ment of rules. We therefore find that the Company did not accord the A. F. of L. any undue advantage with respect thereto. 3. The Company's alleged granting of permission to the A. F. of L. to post notices on bulletin boards calling meetings In accordance with a provision in the bargaining contract, the A. F. of L. maintained its own bulletin boards in each of the departments in each of the plants. On these boards, the A. F. of L. posted notices of its meetings. (a) Thelma Hunter testified that following the expiration of the contract on September 1,1942, she told company officials that A. F. of L. notices were posted and inquired why the Company did not.give the United the same privileges. She further stated that she understood that this,was reported to Burton by the United. Finch testified that her foreman told her that Hunter had reported that A. F. of L. notices were posted and that he had given instructions to Hodges, the employee 658 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ` BOARD who posted these notices, to remove them. He also told Finch that no notices of any kind were to be posted thereafter. Hodges admitted that Collins, the foreman, told her that she would have to remove the notices she posted. (b) Nash testified that he saw several United notices which. were placed on a post right under the A. F. of L. bulletin board, and that he saw Boswell remove them.. He also testified that he saw Ricketts post sample ballots marked for the A. F. of L. on the bulletin boards, and that he called these to Boswell's attention at, the time Boswell removed the United notices. Although Nash at first testified that Boswell replied that the A. F. of L. had permission, he later stated that Boswell had told him that he wished to be fair, that he was not taking sides with either organization, and that neither side could put up literature of campaign during working hours. (c) Ricketts testified that on a Thursday during the pre-election campaign, he posted A. F. of L. notices informing the employees of what the A. F. of L. had done for them, and was called by Thurmond, on Friday morning and told to remove them. Ricketts told Thurmond that no meetings were scheduled with,the Company on Fridays and requested a conference on Monday. At this conference Thurmond told Ricketts that since the contract had expired, the A. F. of L. notices would have to be removed. The notices were removed the next morning. (d) Floyd testified that no permission was secured from the Com- pany to post campaign literature on bulletin boards, and that at a meet- ing the A. F. of L. officers instructed its members not to post anything on the boards and that if they saw anyone else's literature. posted in the plants to remove it. Although he saw United notices posted in the plant, he testified that they were always taken down by someone. The record discloses that copies of a newspaper clipping, which was an open letter written by James C. Crist, treasurer of the A. F. of L., to the employees, urging them to vote for the A. F. of L., were posted on the A. F. of L. bulletin boards prior to the election. According to the testimony of Leonard J. Ford, organizer for the A. F. of L., Crist did not receive permission from the A. F. of L. to advertise this letter in any newspaper or post the letter on bulletin boards. He further stated that the letter was paid for by Crist as an individual and not as an agent for the A. F. of L. Crist did not testify. ' It appears from the foregoing testimony that not only had neither organization secured permission from the Company to,post campaign literature, but in all the incidents above set out, supervisory employees admonished the employees involved and instructed them to remove the campaign literature posted. Although we do not approve campaign- ing within the plant, such as that conducted by both unions in this case, upon the entire record we are not convinced that the Company CRADD;OCK-TERRY SHOE CORPORATION 659 accorded the A. F. of L. privileges in this respect which it withheld from the United. CONCLUSION We are of the opinion -and find that the evidence does not support, the objections,of the United and that, there is nothing in the record which would warrant us in setting aside the election: In this c'miec- tion, we note that although the matters complained of occurred prior to the election and the United was fully aware of them, the United made no objections to the Regional Office prior to the election, and. made no request for the postponement of the election. The objections are therefore overruled, and we shall, accordingly, certify the A. F:' of L. as the exclusive representative of the employees in the appro- priate unit. - , , CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES:. 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, Sections 9 and 10, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 2, as amended IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that Boot and Shoe Workers Union, Local 441, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, has been desig- nated and selected by a majority of all production employees of Crad- • dock-Terry, Corporation, Lynchburg, Virginia, at its three Lynchburg- plants, excluding all maintenance employees,' j anitors; truck drivers, elevator operators, and mechanics, as their representative, for the pur- poses of collective bargaining, and that pursuant to Section .9 (a) of the Act, Boot and Shoe Workers Union, Local 441, affiliated «ith the American Federation of Labor, is the exclusive representative,of all such employees for the purposes of collective bargaining. with respect to the rates, of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment. MR. JOHN: M. HOUSTON took no part in the consideration of the above Supplemental Decision and Certification of Representatives'. _ 521241-43-rol. 48-43 ,