Craddock-Terry Shoe Corp.

In the Matter of CRADDOCK-TERRY SHOE CORPORATION and BOOT AND SHOE WORKERS UNION, LOCAL 441, A. F. of L. Case No. 5-R-0183.-Decided April 8, 1946 Mr. L. P. McLendon, of Greensboro, N. C., for the Company. Mr. Isidor Roman, of Baltimore, Md., for the A. F. of L. Mr. Harry Sacker, by Mr. Samuel Sacker, of New York, N. Y., for the C. I. O. Mr. T. H. Price, of Pocahontas, Va., for the U. C. W. Mr. Arnold Ordman, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon a petition duly filed by Boot and Shoe Workers Union Local 441, A. F. of L., herein called the A. F. of L., alleging that a question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation of em- ployees of Craddock-Terry Shoe Corporation, Lynchburg, Virginia, herein called the Company, the National Labor Relations Board pro- vided for an appropriate hearing upon due notice before Earle K. Shawe, Trial Examiner. The hearing was held at Lynchburg, Vir- ginia, on January 18, 1946. The Company, the A. F. of L., United Shoe Workers of America, Local 90, C. I. 0., herein called the C. I. 0., and United Construction Workers, affiliated with United Mine Work- ers of America, appeared and participated. All parties were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues. At the hearing, the C. I. O. moved to dismiss the petition herein. The Trial Examiner referred this motion to the Board. For reasons stated in Section III, infra, the motion is granted. The Trial Examiner's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. All parties were afforded opportunity to file briefs with the Board. 07 N. L. R. B., No. 12. 105 106 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY Craddock-Terry Shoe Corporation is a Virginia corporation en- gaged in the manufacture and sale of shoes. It operates one plant at Farmville, Virginia, and three plants at Lynchburg, Virginia. The latter three are known as the Southland, Fort Hill, and West End factories and are the only plants involved in this proceeding. During the year 1945, the Lynchburg plants used raw materials consisting chiefly of leather, cloth, rubber, dye stuffs and related products, valued in excess of $10,000,000, of which approximately 90 percent was shipped to these plants from points outside the State of Virginia. During the same period, the finished shoes produced at the Lynchburg plants were valued in excess of $13,000,000, of which approximately 90 percent was shipped to points outside the State of Virginia. The Company admits that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED Boot and Shoe Workers Union, Local 441, is a labor organization affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, admitting to mem- bership employees of the Company. United Shoe Workers of America, Local 90, is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, admitting to membership employees of the Company. United Construction Workers is a labor organization affiliated with the United Mine Workers of America, admitting to membership employees of the Company. III. THE ALLEGED QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION On October 30, 1945, the A. F. of L. wrote to the Company that it represented a majority of the Company's employees and requested recognition as their bargaining representative. The Company refused to grant such recognition "unless and until" a Board certification issued. The record discloses that in June 1944, following an election, the C. I. O. was certified by the Board as the sole bargaining representa- tive of the Company's employees.' On August 14, 1944, the C. I. O. and the Company signed a one-year contract automatically renewable ' See Matter of Craddock-Terry Shoe Corporation, 55 N. L. R. B. 1406. CRADDOCK-TERRY SHOE CORPORATION 107 for annual periods thereafter in the absence of prescribed notice to the contrary, which, however, omitted certain substantive matters upon which the parties had been unable to agree. These disputed items, among them matters of wage increases and union security, were certified to the War Labor Board for disposition on September 5, 1944. The ensuing proceedings before that agency culminated in a directive which it issued on July 27, 1945, providing, inter alia, for "union maintenance" and certain wage increases. In the meantime, the Company had given the C. I. O. timely notice that it would termi- nate its contract on August 14, 1945, the anniversary date. On August 6, 1945, shortly after the directive of the War Labor Board issued, negotiations were begun for a renewal contract, and several meetings were held by the Company and the C. I. O. These meetings were interrupted by a strike of the Company's employees on August 15, 1945. The strike was terminated on October 2, 1945, by an agreement between the Company and the C. I. 0., which provided, in part, that negotiations for a new contract would resume not later than October 15, 1945.2 In compliance with this provision, negotia- tions were begun, and by October 30, 1945, fourteen issues had been agreed upon and only five were still unresolved. But, before a com- plete agreement could be reached, the A. F. of L., as noted above, apprised the Company of its rival claim to representation, and the Company refused to continue its negotiations with the C. 1. 0. There- after, on November 9, 1945, the A. F. of L. filed its petition herein. The C.I.O. contends that the Allis-Chalmers doctrine 3 is applicable to this case, and that it should be afforded a reasonable period within which to conclude an agreement with the Company. We find merit in this contention. The C. I. O. was prompt in submitting the sub- stantive matters in dispute between it and the Company to the War Labor Board. It is clear that, while proceedings were still pending before that agency, we would not have directed an election.' Shortly after the directive of the War Labor Board issued, the Company was notified of a rival organization's claim to representation herein, whereupon it refused to consummate a contract with the C. I. O. Consequently, we are not persuaded that the C. I. O. has enjoyed a reasonable period within which to conclude a comprehensive agree- ment with the Company. Accordingly, we find that no question affecting commerce exists at this time concerning the representation T While the strike was going on, the National War Labor Board, at the request of the C. I. 0., ordered a "show-cause hearing" on the issue of the Company ' s non-compliance with its July 27 directive. On September 18, a decision issued calling upon the Company to comply with the said directive. See Matter of Allis-Chalmers Manufacturing Company , 50 N. L R. B. 306. See Matter of Aluminum Company of America, 53 N. L. R. B 593. 108 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD of the employees of the Company's Lynchburg plants.5 The A. F. of L.'s petition will be dismissed. 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 an investigation and certification of representatives of employees of Craddock-Terry Shoe Corporation, Lynchburg, Virginia, filed by Boot and Shoe Workers Union, Local 441, A. F. of L., be, and it hereby is, dismissed. MR. GERARD D. REiLLY took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Order. 5 See Matter of California Door Company, 64 N. L. R. B. 5.