Limerick Yarn Mills

In the Matter of LIMERICK YARN MILLS, EMPLOYER and EDWARD L. KING, PETITIONER and DEPARTMENT OF WOOLEN AND WORSTED WORKERS OF THE UNITED TEXTILE WORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL, LOCAL UNION 2643, UNION 1 Case No. 1-RD-4.Decided February 27, 1948 Messrs. W. S. Liwnell and S. W. Thaxter, of Portland, Maine, for the Employer. Mr. Edward L. King, of Limerick, Maine, for the Petitioner. Mr. Francis Schaufenbil, of Lawrence, Mass., for the Union. DECISION . AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a petition for decertification duly filed, hearing in this case was held at Portland, Maine, on November 7, 1947, before Leo J. Halloran, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Upon the entire record in the case,' the National Labor Relations Board 3 makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER Limerick Yarn Mills, a Maine corporation, is engaged in the manu- facture of worsted yarn, operating two plants; one at Limerick, Maine, and the other at Manchester, New Hampshire. The Limerick, Maine, plant is the only one involved in this proceeding. During the calen- i The won d "Department" in the name of the Union was changed from "Federation" in May 1944. 2 The Employer requested that certain errors in the transcript of testimony be corrected No objections having been filed by any of the parties, the record is hereby corrected as requested 3 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-man panel consisting of the undersigned Board Members [Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Reynolds]. 76 N L R B,No 60 433 0 434 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD dar year ending September 1947, the Employer purchased raw mate- rials valued at approximately $1,600,000 of which approximately 98 percent was shipped to its plant from points outside the State of Maine. During the same period, the Employer sold finished products exceeding $2,500,000 in value, of which more than 95 percent repre- sented shipments to points outside the State of Maine. The Employer admits and we find that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. II. THE PARTIES INVOLVED The Petitioner, an employee of the Employer, asserts that the Union is no longer the representative of the Employer's employees as defined in Section 9 (a) of the amended Act. The Union, a labor organization affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, was established as exclusive bargaining repre- sentative of employees of the Employer as a result of a consent election held on June 10, 1941.4 III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION Pursuant to Section 9 (c) (1) (A) of the Act, the Petitioner requests that the incumbent Union be decertified, following an election by the Board. In the consent election held on June 10, 1941, the Union demon- strated its majority among employees in an agreed appropriate unit of production and maintenance employees. Since July 28, 1941, the Union has been in contractual relationship with the Employer con- cerning such employees. The last bargaining contract between the parties was entered into on May 6, 1946, and provided that it was to take effect as of July 29, 1945, and continue in effect for successive 2-year periods. The contract further provided that, Either party desiring to modify or terminate this agreement at the end of any two-year period may give notice in writing to the other party not more than sixty (60) days nor less than thirty 30 days, prior to the end of any such two-year period; and, if the notice is of a desire to terminate, the contract will thereupon terminate at the end of the then current two-year period. The record reveals that on June 28, 1947, the Union advised the Employer, by letter, of its desire to "renew and extend the existing agreement with the changes, modifications and additions set out in the enclosed proposal." The Employer and the Union thereupon nego- 4Case No 1-R-692. 0 LIMERICK YARN MILLS 435 tinted for a new contract, but one was never executed by the parties. The Petitioner filed the petition herein on September 17, 1947. The Union contends that the contract of July 1945 is still in exist- ence and constitutes a bar to the present proceeding. We find no merit in this contention. The negotiations between the Employer and the Union for a new agreement rendered inoperative the auto- matic renewal clause of the contract and, at most, converted it into one of indefinite cluration.° Accordingly, this contract cannot be considered as a bar to a present election. We find that a question affecting commerce exists concerning the representation of employees of the Employer, within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT We find, substantially in accordance with an agreement of the parties, that all production and maintenance employees at the Em- ployer's Limerick, Maine, plant, excluding administrators, general office workers, mill clerks, second hands," and all other supervisors, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargain- ing withal the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES The parties requested that the pay-roll for the week ending July 9, 1947, which contained approximately 275 employees, should be used to determine which employees are ehglble to vote in the election here- inafter directed. The reason for this request is that after such date the Employer's business decreased to an extent which necessitated the closing of the plant on August 29, 1947. The plant reopened on October 1, 1947. The employees who were laid off are still considered by the Employer as regular employees and as of the date of the hear- ing, 76 of them had returned to work. It appears that no useful purpose will be served by departing from our usual eligibility date, inasmuch as temporarily laid-off employees, such as the ones here involved, will be eligible to vote, as well as any new employees that might have been hired since October 1, 1947. We shall direct that the question concerning representation which has arisen be resolved by an election by secret ballot, subject to the limitations and additions set forth in the Direction.7 s flatter of Roof ford Drop Forge Company, 7R N L R B 26, and cases cited therein "while the duties of the second hands are not clearly set forth in the record, such em- ployees have been excluded as supervisors from prior bargaining agreements between the parties 7 The fact that the Union is not in compliance with Section 9 (f), (g), and (h) of the Act is not material to the direction of an election in a proceeding which involves a petition 781902-48-vol. 76-29 436 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD DIRECTION OF ELECTION As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Limerick Yarn Mills, Limerick, Maine, an election by secret ballot shall be conducted as early as pos- sible, but not later than thirty (30) days from the date of this Direc- tion, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the First Region, and subject to Sections 203.61 and 203.62 of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 5, among the employees in the unit found appropriate in Section IV, above, who were employed during the pay-roll period inunecllately preceding the date of this Direction, including employees who did not work during said pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation or temporarily laid off, but excluding those employees who have since quit or been discharged for cause and have not been rehired or rein- stated prior to the date of the election, and also excluding employees on strike who are not entitled to reinstatement, to determine whether or not they desire to be represented by Department of Woolen and Worsted Workers of the United Textile Workers of America, AFL, Local Union 2643, for the purposes of collective bargaining. for decertification Accordingly , we shall place the Union 's name on the ballot The Union will be ceitilied it it wins the election, proouded that at that time it is in compliance with the Act Absent such compliance , the Board will only certify the arithmetical results of the election See Matter of Harris Foundry d Machine Company, 76 N L It B 118