Botany Mills, Inc.

BOTANY MILLS, INC. 293 taught to operate the cutting machines. The 5 lining cutters were hired without previous cutting experience. Two began cutting imme- diately and the others may have performed an intermediate step before operating the cutting machines. None of the uptown cutters had pre- vious cutting experience before assuming the operation of the clicker machines.1' A witness called by the Petitioner testified that he was hired without previous experience and went immediately to the cut- ting machine and began cutting linings and that after 3 months he began cutting leather which he has been doing ever since. Another of the Petitioner's witnesses testified that it would take 3 years to become an experienced cutter, admitting that the quality of shoe pro- duced by the manufacturer would determine the rating of the cutter in that particular plant. The Petitioner and the Employer stipulated that the majority of shoe factories in the St. Louis area are organized on a plant-wide basis.'2 The record reveals that the Petitioner previously sought a plant-wide unit at the Sedalia plant. An election was directed by the National Labor Relations Board and the Petitioner was unsuccessful. Under these circumstances, particularly the fact that the Em- ployer's uptown and downtown cutting operations constitute a single department, and the fact that cutters have skills, wages, and condi- tions of employment similar to those of other employees, we find that a unit limited to the downtown cutting department, as petitioned for, is not appropriate, and further, that a unit of cutters in the down- town cutting department, as alternatively requested by the Petitioner, is not an appropriate craft unit 13 Accordingly, we shall dismiss the petition. Order IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition filed herein be, and it hereby is, dismissed. "The evidence is that the foreman would usually remain with a new cutter a week or 10 days and from then on the cutter would be on his own. 12 There was testimony that a check was made of 88 shoe factories in the St. Louis area and only 1, a plant manufacturing novelty shoes not under bulk conditions or quantity, was found to have less than a plant-wide unit. The witness further testified that 3 other plants had had split units, that 2 of these plants are no longer operating, and that the third now has a plant-wide unit. " Cf. Saco-Moo Shoe Corp., 87 NLRB 402. BOTANY MILLS, INC. and TEXTILE WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER. Case No. 2-RC-5016. November 13,1952 Decision and Order Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Arthur Eisenberg, hearing 101 NLRB No. 66. 294 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Peterson]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 2. The labor organization involved claims to represent employees of the Employer. 3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the represen- tation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, for the following rea- sons: Following a Board-directed election, the Petitioner was certified on May 8, 1944, as the exclusive bargaining agent of the employees in- volved in this proceeding.' Since that time, the Petitioner and the Employer have entered into consecutive agreements covering these employees, the last of which was executed on March 15, 1952, and will expire by its terms 1 year from that date-subject to an automatic re- newal provision. On May 22, 1952, after a request for recognition as the bargaining representative of the employees here involved by United Textile Workers of America, AFL, the Intervenor herein, the Employer filed a petition seeking an election to resolve the question of representation as between the Petitioner and the Intervenor. Thereafter, on July 14, 1952, the Intervenor directed a letter to the Employer, asserting that "we are withdrawing our request for recognition at this time." s On July 24, at the request of the Employer, the Regional Director dis- missed the Employer's petition. The present petition was filed July 28, 1952. The Petitioner urges that, notwithstanding its existing contract with the Employer covering the employees in question, the Board should direct an election because : (1) Its earlier certification, issued before the, 1947 amendments to the Act, is "stale" and would not afford the Petitioner the protection and benefits of Section 8 (b) (4) (B), (C), and (D) of the amended Act; and (2) the Intervenor's organi- zational activities are causing a state of unrest and bargaining in- stability. The Employer moves to dismiss the petition on the ground that the Petitioner's own existing contract is a bar. We have previously held that an uncertified incumbent union, by its own petition, may seek certification-including all the statutory ' Botany Worsted Mills, 50 NLRB 370. 3 At the hearing the Intervenor asserted, contrary to the Petitioner 's contention, that it is not now engaged in organizational activities among the Employer 's employees. WEST COAST LOADING CORPORATION 295 privileges and immunities which flow therefrom-notwithstanding long and continued recognition by an employers or the existence of a current agreement' However, as this Petitioner was certified by the Board in 1944 as the representative of these employees, and because the record discloses a continuous and harmonious history of collective bargaining which assumes the current validity of that certification, we find that the contract now in existence between the Employer and the Petitioner, covering the very employees among whom an election is now sought, is a bar to an election at this time. Accordingly, we shall dismiss the petition. Order IT Is HEREBY ORDERED that the petition filed herein be, and it hereby is, dismissed. a General Box Company, 82 NLRB 678. * California Association of Employers, 89 NLRB 1558. See also Acme-Evans Company, Ina., 90 NLRB 2107 , where it was urged that the petitioning incumbent union was the legal successor in interest to the rights of its predecessor , including its Board certification issued 6 years prior. The Board overruled this contention , stating in effect that nothing either in the Act or in Board policy precluded the petitioner from seeking a certification in its own name. WEST COAST LOADING CORPORATION and UNITED STEELWORBTRS OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER . Case No. 21-RC-2706. November 13,1952 Decision and Direction of Election Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Carl Abrams, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from pre- judical error and are hereby affirmed. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three- member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Murdock and Peterson]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain employees of the Employer. 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa- tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 101 NLRB No. 72.