Johnson-Carper Furniture Company, Inc.

In the Matter Of JOHNSON-CARPER FURNITURE COMPANY, INC. anbd LOCAL 283, UNITED FURNITURE WORKERS OF AMERICA Case No. R-141.-Decided August 24, 1939 Furniture Manufacturing Industry-Investigation of Representatives: con- troversy concerning representation of employees: majority status disputed by employer-Unit Appropriate for Collective Bargaining: production and mainte- nance employees, agreement as to ; controversy as to alleged supervisory em- ployees-Representatives : eligible to participate in choice : striking einployeea eligible to vote, and not individuals who took jobs vacated by striking em- ployees-Election Ordered Mr. Herbert O. Eby, for the Board. Mr. L. P. McLendon, of Greensboro, N. C., for the Company. Mr. Lawrence Seton Ross, of Roanoke, Va., for the Union. Mr. Ralph 'Winkler, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION STATEMENT OF THE CASE On July 18, 1939, Local 283, United Furniture Workers of America, herein called the Union, filed with the Regional Director for the Fifth Region (Baltimore, Maryland), a petition alleging that a ques- tion affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation of employees of Johnson-Carper Furniture Company, Inc., Roanoke, Virginia, herein called the Company, and requesting an investigation and certification of representatives pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. On August 8, 1939, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, acting pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the Act, and Article III, Section 3, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 2, ordered an investigation and authorized the Regional Director to conduct it and to provide for an appropriate hearing upon due notice. On August 8, 1939, the Regional Director issued a notice of hearing, copies of which were duly served upon the Company and the Union. Pursuant to the notice a hearing was held on August 10, 1939, at Roanoke, Virginia, before William M. Hepburn, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board. The 14 N. L. R. B., No. 80. 1030 JOHNSON-CARPER FURNITURE. COMPAN Y, INCORPORATED 1031 Board and the Company were represented by counsel and the Union by a representative ; all participated in the hearing . Full oppor- iunity to be heard, to examine and cross -examine witnesses, and. to introduce evidence bearing upon the issues was afforded all parties. During the course of the hearing , the Trial Examiner made rulings on several motions and on objections to the admission of evidence. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudicial errors were committed . The rulings are hereby affirmed. Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY The Company is a Virginia corporation , engaged in the business of manufacturing bedroom furniture at Roanoke , Virginia, where it employs approximately 500 persons. The raw materials used by the Company, 60 per cent of which are obtained from outside the State of Virginia , consist of lumber, veneer,, glue, hardware, mirrors, finishing material, and corrugated shipping containers. In 1938 the furniture produced by the Company had a value of approximately $885,000,, 95 per cent of which was sold outside the State. II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Local 283, United Furniture Workers of America, is a labor organi- zation, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations. It admits to membership the production and maintenance employees of the Company. III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION The Union and the Company executed a contract on October 8,. 1938. During negotiations in June 1939 between the parties looking toward the making of a new contract, the Company questioned the Union's majority representation. . We find that a question has arisen concerning the representation of employees of the Company. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION UPON COMMERCE We find that the question concerning representation which has arisen, occurring in connection with the operations of the Company described in Section I above, has a close , intimate, and substantial 190935-40-vol. 14--6G 1032 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and tends to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT At the hearing the parties agreed that the production and mainte- nance employees of the Company constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining. The Union contended that three employees, Finney, Bolt, and Lyle, are supervisory employees and should be excluded from the unit. Finney is employed in the cabinet room where he distributes ma- terials and advises the men regarding their work. He does not, how- ever, have disciplinary power over any employees. Bolt is a reg- ular employee in the "yard" except that he takes over the foreman's position during the latter's absence. It appears that these absences are very infrequent and that Bolt does not exercise the customary powers of a supervisory employee. The Company stated at the hearing that Lyle was promoted to a position as assistant foreman on July 28, 1939. We find that Lyle is a supervisory employee and we shall exclude him from the unit. Bolt and Finney shall be included. We find that the production and maintenance employees of the Company constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining, and that said unit will insure to employees of the Com- pany the full benefit of their right to self-organization and to col- lective bargaining and otherwise effectuate the policies of the Act. VI. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES We have already alluded to the negotiations between the Union and the Company. The Union went on strike on July 5, pursuant to a strike vote taken on June 30, because it felt that the Company was not cooperating with it in bringing about a satisfactory settlement of the negotiations . The strike was still in effect at the date of the hearing. On July 13 the Company published a notice in a local newspaper stating that it would restore all its striking employees to their former jobs without discrimination until July 17, 1939, and that after that date the Company would proceed to employ other persons to fill the positions left vacant by the employees who did not return to work. On June 30 there were approximately 408 production and mainte- nance employees on the Company's pay roll . At the present time the Company has in its employ approximately 286 of these employees in addition to 106 other employees who have been hired since July 17. ,TOHNSON-CARPER FURNITURE CODIPANY, INCORPORATED 1033 On August 9, 122 men on the June 30 pay roll had not yet returned to work. The Union contends that the June 30 pay roll is the proper one for determining the question concerning representation. In it tele- gram to the Regional Director prior to the hearing, the Company agreed to the use of the July 1 pay-roll date for an election. At the hearing the Company apparently changed its position in this respect, but stated that the issue was for the Board to decide. We are of the opinion that, under the circumstances, the July 1 pay roll should determine eligibility to vote.' Accordingly we hold that the employees in the appropriate unit whose names are listed on the Company's July 1, 1939, pay roll will be eligible to vote in the election which we hereinafter order, and that the individuals who now occupy the positions vacated by striking employees shall not be eligible to vote. We find that the question -which has arisen concerning the repre- sentation of employees of the Compitny can best be resolved by an election by secret ballot. Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. A question affecting commerce has arisen concerning the repre- sentation of employees of Johnson-Carper Furniture Company, Inc., Roanoke, Virginia, within the meaning of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act. 2. The production and maintenance employees of the Company constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargain- ing, within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act. DIRECTION OF ELECTION By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National Labor Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Rela- tions Act, and pursuant to Article III, Section 8, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 2, it is hereby DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation ordered by the Board to ascertain representatives for the purposes of collec- tive bargaining with Johnson-Carper Furniture Company, Inc., Roanoke, Virginia, an election by secret ballot shall be conducted ' Matter of A. Sartorius a Co.. Inc. and United Mine Workers of America, District Local 12090, 10 N. L. R. B. 493. It is apparent that the July 1 pay- roll date is for all practical purposes the same as that of June 30. Both dates precede the strike, and the same pay roll would be involved in either case. We shall use the July 1 date. 1034 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD within fifteen (15) days from the date of this Direction, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Fifth Region (Baltimore, Maryland), acting in this matter as agent for the National Labor Relations Board, and subject to Article III, Sec- tion 9, of said Rules and Regulations, among the production and maintenance employees of Johnson-Carper Furniture Company, Inc.,- whose names appear on the Company's July 1, 1939, pay roll, includ- ing employees who did not work during such pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation, and employees who were then or have since been temporarily laid off, but excluding employees, who have since quit or have been discharged for cause, to determine whether or not they desire to be represented by Local 283, United Furniture Workers of America, for the purposes of collective bargaining. MR. EDWIN S. SMITH took no part in the consideration of the- above Decision and Direction of Election.