General Shoe Corp.

618 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD GENERAL SHOE CORPORATION and BOOT & S HOE WORKER'S UNION, AFL, PETITIONER. Case No. 9-RC4135. July 30,19-54 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 William G. Wilker- son, 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 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 em- ployees 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: The Employer contends that the petition should be dismissed on the ground that the Petitioner is not in compliance with Section 9 (h) of the Act. In support of this contention, it contends that nine mem- bers of the Petitioner's general executive board are in fact officers although not listed as such in its constitution, and that therefore they were required, under Section 9 (ii) of the Act, to file non-Communist affidavits, which act they have not done.2 The compliance status of a union which is required to comply is a matter for administrative de- termination and not one to be litigated in a complaint or representa- tion proceeding.3 Although compliance matters may not be litigated in Board complaint or representation proceedings, it has been Board practice to permit parties to representation or complaint proceedings to cause to be instituted an administrative investigation of those com- pliance matters which the Board may properly decide in collateral proceeding before the Board. We intend to continue that practice.' However, the Employer's offer of proof at the hearing on the merits is not sufficient to warrant the Board in ordering a collateral proceed- ing, inasmuch as such evidence would not support a finding that, under the Board's "constitutional" test, the nine members of the Petitioner's general executive board are officers of the type required to file Section 'At the hearing the Employer made various motions to dismiss the petition, which motions the hearing officer referred to the Board. For reasons hereinafter stated the mo- tions are hereby denied. i The executive board consists of the Petitioner's general president-secretary-treasurer, the general vice president, and nine members. Only the nine members are in question here, because the general president-secretary-treasurer and the general vice president have, as designated constitutional officers, filed Section 9 ( h) affidavits. 8 See Coca-Cola Bottling Company of Louisville, Inc., 108 NLRB 490 and cases cited therein. n See Cooa-Cola Bottling Company of Louisville, Inc , ibid. 109 NLRB No. 88. GENERAL SHOE CORPORATION 619 9 (h) affidavits. Under the Board's "constitutional" test, an officer is a person occupying a position identified as an office in a union's con- stitution.' In the present instance, it does not appear that the nine members of the general executive board are occupying such positions under the Petitioner's constitution. Nor does it appear that the Peti- tioner's constitution has failed to designate as "officers" the nine mem- bers of its general executive board in order to evade the filing require- ments of Section 9 (h) of the Act. Accordingly, we find that the Petitioner is in compliance with Section 9 of the Act, and that the Employer's motion to dismiss on this ground is without merit.' The Employer also contends that the petition should be dismissed because the Petitioner, as prerequisite for doing business in Kentucky, has not, in accordance with chapter 164 of the act of 1952 of the Legis- lature of Kentucky (Kentucky Revised Statutes 336, 170), chartered a local union in that State. We find this contention without merit, because it is well established that State law is not determinative of rights and obligations under the Act, except where the Act expressly provides otherwise.7 Accordingly, we find this contention without merit. The Employer further contends that the petition should be dis- missed upon the ground that, prior to the filing of its petition, the Petitioner had not requested recognition as bargaining representa- tive of the Employer's employees, nor had the Employer declined such recognition, and that therefore the Petitioner has not complied with Section 9 (c) (1) of the Act. At the hearing, however, the Em- ployer refused to recognize the Petitioner as bargaining representa- tive of its employees. Although the Employer is aware of the Ad- vance Pattern case' where the Board found an identical contention without merit, it urges that the Board reconsider and reverse the Ad- vance Pattern decision. The Board has consistently adhered to the Advance Pattern decision,° and we perceive no good reason why we should reverse that decision. We hereby reaffirm that decision, and accordingly, we find no merit in the Employer's contention. 4. The Petitioner seeks a unit of all the Employer's production and maintenance employees at its Danville, Kentucky, plant. The Em- ployer contends that, because of its integrated operations, the appro- priate bargaining unit should consist of all its shoe manufacturing plants, processing terminals, and supply sections of its Southern Shoe 5 Section 102.13 (b) (3) National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations , Series 6, as amended. 9 See Coca-Cola Bottling Company of Louisville, Inc, supra. 7 Consoltidated Vultee Aircraft Corporation, Fort Worth Division, 108 NLRB 591 ; Inter- national Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Local 294 A . F. of L., 87 NLRB 972, 975, footnote 5; Dalton Telephone Company, 82 NLRB 1001, 1002, footnote 7, see also Hill v. Florida, 325 U. S. 538 8 80 NLRB 29. 9 Nephi Processing Plant, Inc, 107 NLRB 647, and cases cited therein. 620 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Manufacturing Division which is comprised of about 30 installations in Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, and Georgia. There is no history of bargaining in the Southern Division either on a single- Ye or multi-plant basis. All plants in the Employer's Southern Shoe Manufacturing Divi- sion are centrally controlled from its central executive office at Nash- ville, Tennessee. The ultimate control is in the central administrative committee which formulates the overall policies on production re- quirements, allocation of products to particular plants, industrial rela- tions, etc. The overall policies thus formulated are implemented by various subordinate committees and departments at the central office. The central production and central operating committees deter- mine the base production to be made at any plant, the number of persons to be employed or laid off, the number of days per week the plant is to be run, the number of hours for each operation, and the expenditure of capital equipment at any plant which cost in excess of $25. The central purchasing office buys all raw materials for all plants in the division. Such materials as leather and skins are stored at Nashville where they are graded and shipped to the plants in the division, when required. The Employer's Southern Sole plant at Nashville manufactures shoe soles which are used by the shoe manu- facturing plants in the division. The labor relations policy is imple- mented by the central industrial relations staff which maintains a uniform labor policy throughout the division. The central account- ing office maintains all accounting records for each plant, and the central payroll department prepares the payroll checks for all plants in the division. These facts show that the plants in the Southern Shoe Manufacturing Division operate under a highly centralized control which indicates the appropriateness of a division-wide unit. On the other hand, there are factors which would justify a unit confined to the Danville plant." The Danville plant, which is under the immediate supervision of a local plant superintendent, is located about 202 miles from the central office at Nashville and the closest plant of the division to the Danville plant is at Frankfort, Kentucky, 42 miles away, and the Employer's next closest plant to Danville is at Gallatin, Tennessee, 175 miles away. The employees at the Danville plant are hired locally and there is virtually no interchange of em- ployees between the Danville and any other plant of the Employer. 10 In its decision dated February 18, 1952, Case No. 9-RC -1471 (not reported in printed volumes of Board Decisions and Orders ), the Board found the Employer's Danville plant to be an appropriate unit. However, the scope of the unit was not an issue in that case and because the union lost the election directed therein no collective bargaining resulted there- from. n Single plant units are generally appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining unless they have been effectively merged to form a consolidated unit. Gulf Oil Corporation, 100 NLRB 1007, 1009. GENERAL SHOE CORPORATION 621 Although, on occasion, part of a shoe may be processed at another plant of the Employer's and shipped to the Danville plant for com- pletion, generally the Danville plant performs the complete opera- tion in the manufacturing of shoes.12 In view of the foregoing cir- cumstances, including the substantial autonomy of the Danville plant, the separate interests of its employees together with the fact that there is no bargaining history, and that no union seeks to represent the employees at the Danville plant in a larger unit, we find that a single plant unit confined to the employees of the Danville plant is appro- priate for purposes of collective bargaining.13 The parties are also in disagreement concerning the composition of the unit at the Danville plant. The Petitioner would exclude the 3 standards clerks, the concession or refreshment stand operator, and 1 employee classified as plant clerk. The standards clerks work in a section of the main office where, by the use of adding machines, they figure earnings for piecework em- ployees. Although standards clerks may on occasion check with the pieceworkers concerning errors in productions records, their duties are predominantly performed in the office apart from production em- ployees. We believe that the standards clerks have a greater com- munity of interest with the office clericals than with the production and maintenance employees. 14 We shall therefore exclude them from the unit. The Employer has 3 employees classified as plant clerks, 2 of whom the parties agree should be included in the unit as the usual plant clericals. Although the third plant clerk in dispute has his desk in the lobby of the main office where he maintains inventory and job cutting records, he works throughout the plant delivering materials to various departments and to some extent he assists in the loading and unloading of trucks. We believe that this plant clerk is also essen- tially a plant clerical such as we have customarily included in pro- duction and maintenance units. We shall include all three plant clerks in the unit. The refreshment stand or concession operator, an hourly paid em- ployee of the Employer, has a stand which is located in the center of the production area. Because the refreshment stand operator works under similar conditions and has similar interests with production and maintenance employees, we shall include such operator in the unit. We find that all production and maintenance employees of the Em- ployer at its Danville, Kentucky, plant, including the plant clerks and the concession stand operator, but excluding office clerical employees, In the Danville plant shoes are cut from raw materials , sewed, lasted , cleaned, and packed as a finished shoe Ll See Harms Langenberg Hat Company, 106 NLRB 19; Rose Marie Reid, 103 NLRB 498; Perfection Garment Co., 91 NLRB 1421 ; Harris Hossery Co , Inc, 91 NLRB 330. 14 See Peterzeil & Gelles, Inc, 94 NLRB 346 , at 350 and 351 622 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD standards clerks, professional employees, guards, and supervisors, as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for purposes of col- lective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (h) of the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] REMINGTON RAND, INC. and DISTRICT No. 157, INTERNATIONAL Asso- CIATION OF MACHINISTS, AFL, PETITIONER. Case No. 3-RC-1288. Judy 30, 1954 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 Bernard Marcus, 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 this case, the Board finds : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain em- ployees of the Employer.2 3. The Intervenor contends that its contract with the Employer, which is to expire September 24, 1954, with automatic renewal date 60 days prior thereto, constitutes a bar to an election in the unit sought by the Petitioner. Inasmuch as the "Mill B" date of the contract is about to occur, we find that it is not a bar. It is therefore unnecessary to consider other contract-bar contentions made by the parties. We find therefore 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. 4. The Employer operates three plants at Ilion, New York, as a single operational unit under a single administrative head. The 3 plants are in close proximity to one another and the Intervenor has represented the production and maintenance employees at the 3 plants in a single unit for approximately 7 years. The Petitioner now seeks to sever from that unit a unit of all tool- and die-makers, model- makers, and apprentices or trainees at the three plants. The Inter- venor contends that the unit is inappropriate; the Employer takes no position. The Intervenor contends that a successful 7-year bargaining history on a broader basis precludes severance of the unit sought. The Board I The hearing officer referred to the Board the Intervenor's motion to dismiss the petition on the grounds of contract bar and inappropriateness of the unit sought. This motion is denied for the reasons stated below. 2 Local 334, International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers , CIO, inter- vened at the hearing on the basis of a current contractual interest. 109 NLRB No. 78.