B. & B. Shoe Co.

In the Matter of B. & B. SHOE COMPANY and UNITED SHOE WORKERS OF AMERICA , LOCAL 48, AFFILIATED WITH THE CONGRESS OF INDIIS- TRIAL ORGANIZATIONS Case No. R-1465.=Decided September 29, 1939 Shoe Manufacturing Industry-Investigation of Representatives : controversy concerning representation of employees : refusal to recognize petitioner ; con- troversy concerning appropriate unit-Unit Appropriate for Collective Bargain- ing: production employees, excluding maintenance, office, and supervisory em- ployees; dispute as to including certain employees-Representatives: Union acquiesced in Company 's contention that election should he held-Election Ordered Mr. Stephen M. Reynolds, for the Board. Mr. Saul Bernstein, of Chicago, Ill., for the Company. Mr. J. D. Spiegel and Mr. Nathan A. Garfield, of Chicago, Ill., for the Union. Mr. Leonard Lindquist, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND .DIRECTION OF ELECTION STATEMENT OF THE CASE On June 14, 1939, United Shoe Workers of America,. Local 48, herein called the Union, filed with the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region (Chicago, Illinois) a petition alleging that a ques- tion affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation of employees of B. & B. Shoe Company,' Chicago, Illinois, herein- -called the Company, and requesting ,in 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 4, 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. ' Incorrectly designated as "B & B Shoe Company " in the petition and the notice of hearing. The title of the case was amended at the hearing to designate the Company correctly. 15 N. L. R. B., No. 84. 774 B. & B. SHOE COMPANY 775 On August 11, 1939, the Regional Director issued a notice of hear- ing; copies of which were duly served upon the Company and upon the Union. Pursuant to the notice, a hearing was held on August 21, 1939, at Chicago, Illinois, before Horace A. Ruckel, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board. The Board and. the Com- pany were represented by counsel, and the Union by' its officials; all participated in the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to exam- ine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues was afforded all parties. During the course of the hearing the Trial Examiner made several rulings on 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, an Illinois corporation, with its factory and office located at Chicago, Illinois, is engaged in the manufacture and sale of house slippers and of infants and children's novelty shoes. The principal raw materials used by the Company are leather, leatherette, shearling, rubber, cotton, thread, eyelets, buttons, laces, boxes, and cartons, approximately 95 per cent of which are obtained from sources outside the State of Illinois. The annual sales of the Company are in excess of $1.50,000, and approximately-95 per cent of these sales represent shipments to destinations outside the State of Illinois. At the time of the hearing the Company employed approximately 187 workers at the Chicago factory. II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED United Shoe Workers of America, Local 48, is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, admitting to membership all production employees of the Company, excluding maintenance, office, and supervisory employees. III. THE QUESTION . CONCERNING REPRESENTATION Prior to the filing of the ,petition in this proceeding, the Union on a number of occasions notified the Company of its claim to repre- sent a majority of the employees within an appropriate bargaining unit and requested recognition as the bargaining representative for such employees. The Company, however, refused all requests for 776 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD recognition on the ground that it was not satisfied that a majority of the employees in question desired representation by the Union. The Company and the Union also were unable to agree as to what constituted an appropriate bargaining unit among employees of the Company. We find that a question has arisen concerning representation of em- ployees of the Company. IV. THE EFFECT OF TILE 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 relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and tends to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing com- merce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT At the hearing, the Union and the Company agreed that all produc- tion employees of the Company, excluding maintenance, office, and supervisory employees, constituted a unit appropriate for the pur- poses of collective bargaining. The parties differed, however, as to the propriety of including certain specific employees within the above-described unit. The Company contends-that one Charles Luczak, a mechanic, should be included in the unit as a production employee. The Union opposes the inclusion of Luczak. In the course of his work, Luczak is subject to call in the various departments of the factory to service the machines, make necessary repairs, and do any special mechanical work that is needed. Although Luczak's work is essential to the production of the Company's merchandise, he does no work on the Company's product at any stage of its manufacture. Luczak is paid a weekly salary while most of the production workers are paid on a piece-work basis. The Company keeps a record of the output of most of its production workers, but keeps no record of Luczak's daily work. Furthermore, Luczak apparently would be eligible to membership in an established craft organization. In view of the foregoing, we shall exclude Luczak from the appropriate unit. The Company further contends that Max Johannes, Morton Bern- stein, Mary Pajkos, and Bernard Tessler, all of whom are employed in the shipping department, should be included in the appropriate unit as production employees. The Union offers no objection to the inclusion of Johannes and Bernstein who are classified as "shippers." B. & B. SHOE COMPANY 777 We shall include these two employees in the appropriate unit. The Union objects, however, to the inclusion of Pajkos and Tessler, who are classified as "order pickers." It is the Union's contention that Pajkos and Tessler are primarily engaged in the clerical work of keeping records of orders. We find, however, that as a substantial part of their duties, these two employees work on the Company's products by sorting out merchandise and getting it ready for packing. "there is no showing that the nature of the work performed by the two "order pickers" results in their having any interests or problems -different from those of other employees who handle the Company's product in the course of its manufacture, nor does the record indicate that they are paid on a different basis. We therefore shall include them in the appropriate unit. We find that the production employees of the Company, excluding maintenance, office, and supervisory employees, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining, and that said unit will insure to employees of the Company the full benefit of their right to self-organization and to collective bargaining and otherwise effectuate the policies of the Act. VI. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES At the hearing, the Union offered to present its signed application cards as a basis for certification as bargaining representative. The Company objected to certification on the basis of such cards, however, and as a result the Union acquiesced in the Company's contention that an election should be held to determine the employees' wishes regarding representation.' Under the circumstances, we believe that the question concerning representation which has arisen should be resolved by the holding of an election by secret ballot. We shall, accordingly, direct that such an election be held. For the week ending August 19, 1939, the Company's pay roll included approximately 178 production workers. The last 6 months of the year, however, represent the Company's high production period, and at the time of the hearing the Company anticipated hiring addi- tional employees. It is the Company's policy to hire back the same employees from one high production period to another. In view of the circumstances, we find that those eligible to vote in the election shall be the employees in the appropriate unit during the last pay-roll period next preceding the Direction of Election. Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following : 2 As a result of this understanding that an election should he held, the Union did not introduce its signed application cards in evidence. 778 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. A question affecting commerce has arisen concerning the repre- sentation of employees of B. & B. Shoe Company, Chicago, Illinois, within the meaning of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act. 2. The production employees, of the Company, excluding main- tenance, office, and supervisory employees, constitute a unit - appro- priate for the purposes of collective bargaining, 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 Boards 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 collective bargaining with B. & B. Shoe Company, Chicago, Illinois, an election by secret ballot shall be conducted within fifteen (15) days from the date of this Direction of Election under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region, acting in this matter as agent for the National Labor Relations Board and subject to Arti- cle III, Section 9, of said Rules and Regulations, among the produc- tion employees of B. & B. Shoe Company, Chicago, Illinois, who were employed during the pay-roll period next preceding the date of this Direction of Election, including 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 maintenance, office, and supervisory employees, and employees who have since quit or been discharged for cause, to deter- mine whether or not they desire to be represented by United Shoe Workers of America, Local 48, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations. for the purposes of collective bargaining.