Massachusetts Leather Manufacturers' Association

MASSACHUSETTS LEATHER MANUFACTURERS' ASSOCIATION 513 tion at approximately 4 p. m. However, he stated that negotiations had been concluded prior to the receipt of the letter and that only the formalities of having the contract typed and the signatures affixed remained. The membership of the Intervenor ratified the contract on the night of December 7, and notice of the ratification was com- municated to Mr. Sweetland that night after such action was taken. The Petitioner had sent the letter of December 7 to the Employer by special delivery registered mail, return receipt requested, and the latter shows that it was received by one Hazel Thompson for the addressee, Mr. Sweetland, on December 7. It is evident from the above testimony that the Employer had actual knowledge of the Petitioner's claim prior to the formal execution of the current contract. Notwithstanding that negotiations had been concluded and the terms of the contract ratified by the union member- ship prior to such notice, no contract was entered into before the Petitioner's notice was given. The petition was filed herein within 10 days after such notice was given, and the Board has recently affirmed its policy that the execution of a contract in the interim can- not operate as a bar to an election.' 4. The Employer is engaged in the manufacture of forgings and stampings for the automotive and mechanical refrigeration industry. The parties herein stipulated, and we find, that the following em- ployees constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act: All production and maintenance employees of the Employer at its Binghamton, New York, plant, excluding all office clerical employees, laboratory technicians, guards, professional employees, and super- visors as defined in the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] 1 See Associated Food Distributors , Inc., 109 NLRB 574. Cf. Oswego Falls Corp., 110 NLRB 621. Massachusetts Leather Manufacturers' Association and Leather Workers Organizing Committee, CIO and Its Local 21, Peti- tioner Advance Leather Co., Inc. and Leather Workers Organizing Com- mittee, CIO and Its Local 21, Petitioner Joseph Lewaiski d/b/a Comet Leather & Finishing Co. and Leather Workers Organizing Committee, CIO and Its Local 21, Petitioner Theodore Kaplan, I. L. Tarlow, Warren T. Carney and Lillian E. Carney d/b/a Danvers Coating Co. and Leather Workers Or- ganizing Committee, CIO and Its Local 21, Petitioner 112 NLRB No. 73. 514 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Dolan Leather Company and Leather Workers Organizing Com- mittee, CIO and Its Local 21, Petitioner Endicott Finishing Co., Inc. and Milton E. Copp , Melvin Hershen- son and Saul D. Hershenson d/b/a North Shore Leather Co. and Leather Workers Organizing Committee , CIO and Its Local 21, Petitioner Fast Finishing Co., Inc. and Leather Workers Organizing Com- mittee, CIO and Its Local 21, Petitioner Foster Leather Co., Inc. and Leather Workers Organizing Com- mittee, CIO and Its Local 21, Petitioner Greenway Tanning Company, Inc. and Leather Workers Organ- izing Committee, CIO and Its Local 21 , Petitioner Antonio Danda and Joseph R. Drago d/b/a H. D. C. Leather Com- pany and Leather Workers Organizing Committee , CIO and Its Local 21, Petitioner Henry and Samuel Smidt d/b/a Henry Leather Company and Leather Workers Organizing Committee , CIO and Its Local 21, Petitioner Edward J. and John F. Hogan d/b/a Hogan Bros. and Leather Workers Organizing Committee, CIO and Its Local 21, Peti- tioner Ideal Finishing Co., Inc. and Leather Workers Organizing Com- mittee, CIO and Its Local 21, Petitioner Kay Tanning Co., Inc. and Leather Workers Organizing Commit- tee, CIO and Its Local 21, Petitioner N. H. Matz and Bertram Matz d/b/a Matz Tanning Company and Leather Workers Organizing Committee, CIO and Its Local 21, Petitioner Morris Issaacson d/b/a Morris Tanning Co. and Leather Work- ers Organizing Committee, CIO and Its Local 21, Petitioner Victory Tanning Corporation and Leather Workers Organizing Committee, CIO and Its Local 21, Petitioner Charles Swartzburg d/b/a Charles Swartzburg Leather Com- pany and Leather Workers Organizing Committee , CIO and Its Local 21, Petitioner Stahlbrand Leather Co., Inc. and Leather Workers Organizing Committee, CIO and Its Local 21, Petitioner Shawmut Tanning Corporation and Leather Workers Organizing Committee, CIO and Its Local 21 , Petitioner MASSACHUSETTS LEATHER MANUFACTURERS' ASSOCIATION 515 Samsons Leather Co ., Inc. and Leather Workers Organizing Com- mittee, CIO and Its Local 21, Petitioner F. P. Osborn, Inc. and Leather Workers Organizing Committee, CIO and Its Local 21, Petitioner Victor J. Regis, Mario J. Regis and Guido V. Regis d/b/a Rex Leather Finishing Company and Leather Workers Organizing Committee, CIO and Its Local 21, Petitioner Strauss Tanning Company, Inc. and Leather Workers Organizing Committee, CIO and Its Local 21 , Petitioner Tremont Leather Co., Inc. and Leather Workers Organizing Com- mittee, CIO and Its Local 21, Petitioner The American Polymer Company of the Chemical Division of the Borden Company and Leather Workers Organizing Com- mittee, CIO and Its Local 21, Petitioner The American Resinous Chemicals Corporation and Leather Workers Organizing Committee, CIO and Its Local 21, Peti- tioner Goodhue Plastics, Inc. and Leather Workers Organizing Com- mittee, CIO and Its Local 21, Petitioner. Cases Nos. 1-RC-38541, 1-RC 3855,1-1110-3858,1-RC-3859,1-RC-3860,130-3862,1-RC- 3864, 130-3865, 1-RC-3868, 1-RC-3869, 1-RC-3870, 130-3871, 1-1103872,1-RC-3874,1-RC-3876,1-RC-3878,130-3881,1-RC- 3882, 1-R0-3884, 1-RC-3885, 1-RC-3887, 1-R0-3891, 1-RC- 3892, 1-110-3893, 1-R0-3894, 130-3895, 1-RC-3896, and 1-RC- 3898. A pril 28,1955 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS Upon separate petitions duly filed, a hearing was held in this con- solidated proceeding on February 15-18, 22, and 23, 1955, at Salem and Boston, Massachusetts, before Joseph Lepie, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.' 'The various individual Employers covered by the separate petitions are collectively refereed to bench as the Independents -Massachusetts Leather Manufacturers' Associa- tion is herein iefeired to as the Association, and the Emploles as a group involved in the Association petition are ia!ciied to as the Members The names of various of the indi- vidual Employ ers appear herein as amended at the hearing The -Members of the Association covered by the petition in Case No 1-RC-3854 are- Carr Leather Co , Ruin Laties, Allen Gittei, Morton Gerfnet Morris Golnd, and Barry Hoffman d/b/a Central Leather Co , B E. Cox Leather Co ; William F. Duffy d/b/a Wil- liam F Duffy & Son , Fei aura Leather Co , Inc , Gale Leather Co , Inc , Hunt-Rankin Leather Co , Kustei n Led list Co , Kit stein Tanning Company, Inc , Korn Leather Coin- pany, Inc , John McCarthy & Son, Inc , Modern Leather & Finishing Co , Inc. , Morrill Leather Company Naumkeag Tanning Company, Inc , Prager Leather Corp. ; Prager Tanning Company , Stanley and Albeit Diroce d/b/a Standard Finishing Company , Phenny Snnidt Leather Co Supetioi Hat Leather Co , Universal Tanning Co ; and Verza Tanning 369028-56-vol 112 34 Z16 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Upon the entire record in this case,' the Board finds : 1. The Employers are engaged in commerce within the meaning ,of the National Labor Relations Act? 2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain employees of the Employers. 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the represen- tation of employees of the Employers within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) andSection 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. The Intervenor, International Fur and Leather Workers Union of the United States and Canada and its Local 21,4 asserts its current contracts with the individual Companies involved herein as bars to the present proceedings alleging that the petitions were filed prema- turely. The Employers and the Petitioner contend the various con- tracts do not bar these proceedings because (1) with respect to all but three of these contracts the petitions forestalled automatic re- newal thereof; (2) the remaining three contain illegal union-secu- rity clauses; and (3) in any event a schism exists in the contracting union. Two-year collective bargaining agreements between Members of the Association and the Intervenor and between all but 3 of the In- dependents and the Intervenor remain in effect until May 25, 1955, and provide for yearly automatic renewals unless notice is given by either party 90 days prior to the expiration date. The petitions and amended petitions herein were filed on January 21 and 27, 1955, respectively. We note that the petitions were filed around a month- Co , all of Peabody , Massachusetts ; Bay State Belting Company ; Henry K. Barnes Co.; Ciestbrand Tanning Co.; Donnell & Mudge Tanning Corp. ; John Flynn & Sons , Inc ; Haw- thorne Tanners , Inc. ; Helburn Thompson Company ; Harold M. Leach and Charles J. Heckel d/b/a Leach-Heckel Leather Co. ; A Joseph Jones d/b/a Mason Tanning Co. ; 'Thomas A. O'Keefe Leather Co . ; Russell-Sim Tanning Co.; and H. A. Polchuk d/b/a Witch City Tanning Company , all of Salem , Massachusetts ; Creese & Cooke Co., Inc., and Judge Leather Co of Danvers, Massachusetts ; and Wakefield Fellmongers Co. of Wake- field, Massachusetts 2 As the record and briefs in these proceedings adequately present the issues and the positions of the parties , the Intervenor 's request for oral argument before the Board is hereby denied 3The record indicates that all Companies involved herein with the exception of the American Polymer Company ( engaged in the manufacture of plastics ), The American Resinous Chemicals Corporation ( engaged in the manufacture of chemicals and adhesives), and Goodhue Plastics ( engaged in the manufacture of plastics ) are engaged in one or more phases of the leather industry The record further shows that with the exception of one , each Employer , whether Inde- pendent or a Member, either processed and shipped to points outside the Commonwealth of Massachusetts , merchandise valued in excess of $50,000, or received in excess of $100,000 for services rendered to specific companies located in Massachusetts each of which an- nually ships in excess of $50,000 to points outside the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. See Jonesboro Grain Drying Cooperative, 110 NLRB 481. The one exception , a company in a state of insolvency which submitted no jurisdictional facts, is a part of the Members group. The Association Members collectively ship products annually in excess of $500,000 to points outside the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. See Insulation Contractors of Southern California, Inc , 110 NLRB 638. 4 Before the close of the hearing the Intervenor presented evidence that during the course of the hearing it had been merged with the Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workers of North America , AFL, and had become a constituent part thereof. MASSACHUSETTS LEATHER MANUFACTURERS' ASSOCIATION 517 a reasonable time-before the Mill B date,5 which has now passed, and these contracts are about to expire .6 Accordingly, we find that these petitions were not prematurely filed and that these contracts are no bar to these proceedings. With respect to the three remaining Independent Companies, the record shows that the Intervenor's contracts with the American Polymer Company of the Chemical Division of Borden Company (Case No. 1-RC-3895) and with the American Resinous Chemicals Corporation (Case No. 1-RC-3896) expire on May 31, 1955. The collective-bargaining agreement between the Intervenor and Good- hue Plastics, Inc., commenced on February 1, 1954, and expires on January 3, 1956. The first 2 of these 3 contracts mentioned contain the following union-security provision : Article II (a) It is a continuing condition of employment that all employees covered by this agreement, both present and new, shall be and remain in good standing members of the Union. (b) The employer agrees that it will not retain in its employ (1) any present employee covered by this agreement not now a member of the Union who has failed to become a member of the Union within three (3) weeks from the date hereof; (2) any new employee covered by this agreement who does not belong to the Union when hired and who does not join within three (3) weeks after his or her employment commences; and (3) any em- ployee covered by this agreement who does not maintain good membership in the Union, provided that the employer shall not be required to discharge any such employee until the expira- tion of seven (7) days after receipt of written notice from the Union requesting it to do so. The following union-security clause is contained in the last men- tioned contract: Article VII 2. Each new employee hired after the date of this Agreement shall, as a condition of employment, make applica- tion for membership in the Union within five (5) days after the date of hiring, but shall not be required to pay an initiation fee until he has completed the three-week probationary period at which time he shall join the Union, and thereafter remain in good financial standing in the Union for the duration of this Agree- ment. 3. Each present employee who is a member of the Union shall, as a condition of continued employment, hereafter remain in s See Central Rnfina, 108 NLRB 307; J. C Mrscltman Company, Inc, 106 NLRB 529, 530; Micamold Radio Corp, 94 NLRB 1193. 6 Cf. Poi tsmouth Clay Refracto) ,es Co, 97 NLRB 1144. 518 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD good financial standing in the Union for the duration of this. Agreement. Any present employee, except those referred to in paragraph 2, above, not a member of the Union, shall as a con- dition of continued employment, join the Union within ten (10) days after the signing of this Agreement and thereafter remain in good financial standing in the Union for the duration of this Agreement. We note that the above-quoted sections of these contracts specifically provide for periods of 3 weeks or for a period of 10 days in which to join the union as a condition of continued employment for new employees or nonmembers employed at the time of execution , depend- ing upon the category in which they fall. Thus, these provisions expressly deny to both old and new employees the 30-day statutory period in which to join the union. As they provide for union security in excess of that permitted by the Act,' we find that these contracts do not constitute bars to these proceedings.' 4. With respect to the appropriate bargaining units, the parties are in agreement, and we find, that in Cases Nos. 1-RC-3895, 3896, and 3898 involving The American Polymer Company, The American Resinous Chemicals Corporation, and Goodhue Plastics, Inc., respec- tively, the unit consists of: All production and maintenance employees, excluding dishwashers, laboratory assistants , chemists, office clerical employees , professional employees, executive employees, guards, and all supervisors as defined in the Act. The parties further agree, and we find, that a separate unit for each of the remaining Independent Employers covered by separate peti- tions herein , shall consist of: All production employees, excluding office clerical employees, maintenance employees, executives, professional employees , foremen,- guards, and all supervisors as defined in tho, Act. In Case No. 1-RC-3854, the Petitioner and the Association are in agreement and urge a single units consisting of: All production employees of the Members of the Association in the- Peabody, Salem, and Danvers area, excluding office clerical employ- ees, maintenance employees, executives, foremen, guards, professional employees, and all supervisors as defined in the Act. The Intervenor does not object to the inclusions and exclusions outlined for this unit but contends that the employees of each mein- ' See Ira Grob , Inc, 110 NLRP. 626 8 In anv event the first 2 of these 3 contracts are about to expire and would not bar an election herein for that reason As we have found that none of the contracts between the Tntervenoi and the vaiious companies bar these proceedings on the grounds stated herein we find it unnccessaty to pass upon the schism issues presented by the parties 0 This is substantially the unit found appropriate by the Board for members of this- Association in Advance Tannuiq Conifuny, 60 NLRB 923 CHRONICLE PUBLISHING COMPANY, INC. 519 .ber constitute separate appropriate units. The record reveals that since 1945 the Intervenor and the Association have continued the bargaining pattern found by the Board to warrant establishing a single Association multiemployer bargaining unit for members in the Peabody, Salem, and Danvers area. It has been the practice, both before and after the Board's decision, for the Association to bargain jointly on behalf of these Members and for each employer-member individually to sign without change identical bargaining contracts negotiated in their behalf by the Association. We find, therefore, that a multiemployer unit rather than the separate member-employer units urged by the Intervenor is appropriate.10 Accordingly, we find a single unit consisting of the above-described 'employees of Association Members in the Peabody, Salem, and Dan- vers area, is appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. [Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.] 11 See United Productions of Aumertca 111 NLRB 390; Bloch. Cut Manufactu,ers, Inc., Ill NLRB 2(i.i The Intervenor alternatively urged at the hearing that if a multiemployer unit is found appropuate, it should include five member-companies which are located outside the Pea- body, Salem, and Danvers aiea and which were excluded from the area unit previously found appropriate, by the Ronid in 1945 The record reveals that the Association has at times and in vai y ing degi ees, assisted these five members in bargaining for their respec- tive units of has bargained on then behalf, and at times such bargaining has occurred con(urrentl} NNith the area bargaining Ilowever, this was likewise the practice before the Board s unit determination in 1945, and the present record clearly ueflects an intent by the paities to the area bargaining, as isell as those members excluded therefrom, to pursue a course of bargaining in conformity with the Board's area unit determination. In view of the Ioicgnmg we find no peisuasive season for disturbing the successful history of mulnempie ei b,egainiii confined to ;Members nu the Peabody, Salem, and Danvers area See Au Conditioning Company of Southern C'alifoinsa, 81 NLFB 946, 952. Chronicle Publishing Company , Inc. and Lynn E. Boyd. Case No. 35-CA-531. April 29, 7955 DECISION AND ORDER On October 29, 1954, Trial Examiner Lee J. Best issued his Inter- mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Inter- mediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent Com- pany filed exceptions and brief. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter- mediate Report, the exceptions and the brief, and the entire record 112 NLRB No. 69.