Cone Mills Corp.

830 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR - RELATIONS BOARD 3: 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. 4. We find, in accordance with a stipulation of the parties, that the following employees of the Employer constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Sec- tion 9 (b) of the Act: All production and maintenance employees of the Employer employed at its Yazoo City, Mississippi, plant, including plant clericals , truckdrivers, truck hostlers, messengers, janitors, and laboratory employees, but excluding all office clerical employees, field representatives , first aid nurses, engineers, assistant engineers, draftsmen, professional employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] CONE MILLS CORPORATION-EDNA PLANT and GEORGE T. TERRY, PETITIONER and UNITED TEXTILE WORKERS OF AMERICA, A. F. L. CONE MILLS CORPORATION-EDNA PLANT and TEXTILE WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, C. I. 0., PETITIONER CONE MILLS CORPORATION-WRITE OAK PLANT and JAMES KENNEDY, PETITIONER and UNITED TEXTILE WORKERS OF AMERICA, A. F. L. GREENSBORO-BURLINGTON JOINT BOARD CONE MILLS CORPORATION-WHITE OAK PLANT and TEXTILE WORK- ERS UNION OF AMERICA, C. I. 0., PETITIONER CONE MILLS CORPORATION-MINNEOLA PLANT and MERTON SIMPSON, PETITIONER and UNITED TEXTILE WORKERS OF AMERICA, A. F. L., LOCAL 700 CONE MILLS CORPORATION-MINNEOLA PLANT and TEXTILE WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, C. I. 0., PETITIONER CONE MILLS CORPORATION-PRINT WORKS PLANT and VERNON L. INGOLD, PETITIONER and UNITED TEXTILE WORKERS OF AMERICA, A. F. L., LOCAL 259 CONE MILLS CORPORATION-PRINT WORKS PLANT and TEXTILE WORK- ERS UNION OF AMERICA, C. I. 0., PETITIONER CONE MILLS CORPORATION-PROXIMITY PLANT and LLOYD C. KEN- NEDY, PETITIONER and UNITED TEXTILE WORKERS OF AMERICA, A. F. L., LOCAL 739 CONE MILLS CORPORATION-PROXIMITY PLANT and TEXTILE WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, C. I. 0., PETITIONER 110 NLRB No. 135. CONE MILLS CORPORATION 831 CONE MILLS CORPORATION-GRANITE PLANT and HUBERT ROSS IN- GOLD, PETITIONER and UNITED TEXTILE WORKERS OF AMERICA, A. F. L. LOCAL 1113 CONE MILLS CORPORATION-GRANITE PLANT and TEXTILE WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, C. I. 0., PETITIONER. Cases Nos. 11-RD-47, 11-RC-623, 11-RD-48, 11-RC-629, 11-RD-49, 11-RC-630, 11- RD-50,11-RC-631,11-RD-51,11-RC-632,11-RD-52, and 11-RC- 633. November 9,1954 I Decision and Direction of Elections Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the Na- tional Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing l was held before John M. Dyer, 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 : 3 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain employees of the Employer. 3. Questions affecting commerce exist 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. The instant proceedings involve six North Carolina plants of the Employer known as the Edna, White Oak, Minneola, Print Works, Proximity, and Granite plants, respectively. The United Textile Workers of America, AFL, herein called the AFL, represents separate production and maintenance employees' units at each of the plants under separate contracts and pursuant to Board certifications. Sep- arate decertification petitions affecting each of the plants were filed on April 30 and May 18, 1954. On May 3 and May 19, 1954, the Tex- tile Workers Union of America, CIO, herein called the CIO, filed sep- 1 As consolidation of hearings is a matter of administrative discretion , we find no merit in the contention that the proceedings herein were improperly consolidated . Pacific Mari- time Association, 100 NLRB 1259 , footnote 7. 2 One Luther Carroll was permitted to intervene at the hearings as representative of the Greensboro-Burlington Joint Board , AFL, which represents the various local AFL unions. Carroll is an AFL signatory to the contracts and addendum clauses. The United Textile Workers of America , AFL, International representative, who was also permitted to intervene , excepts to Carroll's intervention on the ground that Carroll is no longer an AFL representative , an assertion which Carroll denies. We find that Carroll's inter- vention was proper under the circumstances, and did not prejudice the AFL International. The United Textile Workers of America , AFL, herein called the AFL, challenged the decertification petitioners' showing of interest, and moved that the hearing be reopened for the purpose of taking evidence on fraudulent signatures , although admittedly it had no evidence of fraud. As there is no evidence of fraud, the motion is denied . Moreover the Board has repeatedly held that the showing of interest is a matter of administrative discretion, not litigable by the parties. 3 The requests of the Employer and Intervenor for oral argument are hereby denied, as the record and briefs adequately present the positions of the parties. 832 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD agate certification petitions with respect to each of these plants, seek- ing representation of the production and maintenance employees in each of these units. The parties agree that sparate units of produc- tion and maintenance employees at each plant are appropriate. How- ever, the Employer and the AFL urge their current contracts, which have varying expiration dates, as a bar to all the decertification and certification petitions. The contract for the Proximity plant expired on October 1, 1954. The contract for the White Oak plant, which expires on December 1, 1954, has an October 1, 1954, automatic renewal date. The contract for Print Works plant has a November 1, 1954, expiration date, but no automatic renewal clause. The decertification petitions for each of the foregoing plants were filed on May 18, 1954, and the certification petitions affecting the same plants were filed on May 19, 1954. As the Proximity plant contract has expired, and as the October 1, 1954, au- tomatic renewal date of the White Oak plant contract has passed, these contracts cannot serve to bar immediate elections at these plants.4 As the Print Works plant contract will expire within the next 30 days, that contract likewise cannot serve to bar an election at this time.' We turn next to the contracts covering the Edna, Granite, and Minneola plants, respectively. The contract at the Edna plant ex- pires March 1, 1955, and contains a January 1, 1955, automatic renewal date. The contract at the Granite plant expires January 1, 1955, and has no automatic renewal clause. The contract at the Minneola plant, expires February 1, 1955, and contains a December 1, 1954, automatic renewal date. In asserting that the contracts at these three plants do not bar the instant petitions, the decertification petitioners and the CIO rely on the following clause which was executed as an addendum 6 to each of the contracts on the same day that the con- tracts were executed, and on action taken thereunder : Elections It is recognized that prior to the normal expiration date of the contract between the parties, as signed this day, the employees may desire to vote in a secret election on whether they want to continue the union and the contract until [applicable expiration date], or whether to discontinue the union as their bargaining agent. Accordingly, it is agreed that if at any time at least 50% 4 Coca-Cola Bottling Works Company, 03 NLRB 1414 ; Anheuser-Busch, Inc , 102 NLRB 800, 803 c Affiliated Bakers Corp., 101 NLRB 1484, 1486 6 The Intervenor contends that these addenda are invalid because they were not, in all cases, signed by the same union signatories who signed the contracts All the addenda were signed by Luther Carroll, business manager of the Greensboro-Burlington Joint Board, AFL, which is authorized to act on behalf of the various local unions, and at a time when Carroll was unquestionably authorized to act on behalf of both the Joint Board and the locals. CONE MILLS CORPORATION 833 of the employees in the bargaining unit at this plant sign a peti- tion for an election, then the contract will not be raised as a bar to an election by the National Labor Relations Board or by some mutually agreeable body. In the event such a petition is signed by 50% of the employees, the union agrees to cooperate in every way in securing a consent election at an early date and will abide by the results of the election. Each of the decertification petitioners submitted special requests for an election from more than 50 percent of the employees in each unit. The Employer and the AFL urge alternatively (1) that the quoted clause does not by its terms effectively waive the contracts as a bar to either decertification or certification proceedings, and (2) that even if the clause does by its terms render the contracts no bar to the de- certification proceedings, the contracts nevertheless bar the certifica- tion proceedings.r As we read the quoted clause, it provides in clear and unequivocal terms that the employees shall have the right to an election to deter- mine whether the contracting union should no longer continue to serve as collective-bargaining representative. Under the circumstances, and as the contingency contemplated by the agreement of the parties has in fact arisen, in that more than 50 percent of the employees in each of the units have manifested their desire for an immediate election, we find that the contracts do not bar the decertification proceedings.8 Furthermore, as questions concerning representation have been raised by the decertification petitions, we find that the contracts likewise do not serve as a bar to the certification proceedings.9 The Employer and the Intervenor moved to dismiss the petitions on the additional ground that the contract bar issue is res judicata because of a prior dismissal of a petition involving the Granite plant. However, the condition contemplated in the above-described ad- dendum clauses had not yet occurred and, in any event no contention was made based on such clauses at that time. We therefore find no merit in the motion to dismiss on this ground." 7 The Employer and the AFL also contend that the individual card requests for an elec- tion signed by the employees do not meet the requirement of the contracts that a "peti- tion" be signed by 50 percent of the employees . We find that the cards signed by over 50 percent of the employees clearly show an intent to take the course of action contem- plated by the quoted clause in the contracts. BHiden Warehouse and Forwarding Company, 80 NLRB 1587; The Amertican News Co , Inc., 102 NLRB 196. See Pantasote Company, 103 NLRB 1271 io The Employer and the Intervenor also moved to dismiss the petitions on the further ground that there was collusion between the decertification petitioner and the petitioning union The Board has held this contention to be irrelevant where, as here, the union involved is in full compliance with the filing requirements of Section 9 of the Act Phs.la- delphia Chewing Gum Corporation, 107 NLRB 997 ; Ketchum & Company, Inc, 95 NLRB 43, footnote 1. % 338207-55-vol. 110 54 834 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 4. The appropriate units : In accordance with the agreement of the parties, we find that the following constitute units appropriate for purposes of collective bar- gaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act : (a) All production and maintenance employees at the Employer's Edna plant, Reidsville, North Carolina, excluding clerical or steno- graphic employees, second hands, timekeepers, loom step checkers, yarn testers, supply room man, overseers, watchmen, executives, and all other supervisors as defined in the Act. (b) All production and maintenance employees at the Employer's White Oak plant, Greensboro, North Carolina, excluding powerplant employees, electricians, production records clerks, supply clerks, trip boy, timekeepers, loom stop checkers, spinning end breakage check- ers, laboratory employees, watchmen and guards, truckdrivers and mechanics, village upkeep employees, general construction employees, professional employees, foremen-fixers, and all other supervisors as defined in the Act. (c) All production and maintenance employees at the Employer's Minneola plant, Gibsonville, North Carolina, excluding clerical em- ployees, spinning breakage and weaving loom stop checkers, police- men, watchmen, foremen, and all other supervisors as defined in the Act. (d) All production and maintenance employees at the Employer's Print Works plant, Greensboro, North Carolina, including factory clerical employees and truckdrivers, but excluding all machine print- ers (journeymen and apprentices) in the printing department, office clerical employees, watchmen and armed guards, laboratory employ- ees (actual workmen are not considered laboratory employees when assigned to the chemical building), overseers, second hands, and all supervisors as defined in the Act. (e) All production and maintenance employees at the Employer's Proximity plant, Greensboro, North Carolina, including plant cleri- cal employees, second hands, and head loom fixers, but excluding office clerical employees, production records clerk, timekeepers, spinning end breakage and weaving loom stop checkers, head overhaulers, head spindle plumbers, laboratory employees, watchmen, village upkeep employees, truckdrivers and mechanics, electricians, supply room man, outside carpenters, powerplant employees, second hands, opener and picker room foremen and fixers, foremen, and all other supervisors as defined in the Act. . (f) All production and maintenance employees at the Employer's Granite plant, Haw River, North Carolina, excluding office clerical employees, watchmen, and supervisors as defined in the Act. [Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.]