The Muskin Shoe Co.

In the Matter of THE MUSKIN SHOE COMPANY and UNITED SHOE WORKERS OF AMERICA Case No. R-1890.-Decided July 3, 19-0 Jurisdiction : shoe manufacturing industry. Investigation and Certification of Representatives : existence of question : em-' Dloyer refuses to accord recognition to union and -requests that certification be obtained ; election necessary. Unit Appropriate for Collective Bargaining : production and maintenance em- ployees excluding supervisory and clerical employees. Lauchheimer and Frank, by Mr. Eli Frank, Jr., of Baltimore, Md., for the Company. Mr. Frank J. Bender and Mr. Anthony Forinachelli, of Baltimore, Md., and Mr. Leo Goodman, of Washington, D. C., for the Union. Miss Margaret M. Farmer, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION STATEMENT OF THE CASE On April 11, 1940, United Shoe Workers of America, herein called the Union, filed with the Regional Director for the Fifth Region (Baltimore, Maryland) a petition, and on May 6, 1940, an amended petition, alleging that a question affecting commerce had arisen con- cerning the representation of employees of The Muskin Shoe Company, Baltimore, Maryland, 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 May 10, 1940, 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, as amended, ordered an investigation and authorized the Regional Director to conduct it and to provide for an appropriate hearing upon due notice. On May 16, 1940, the Regional Director issued a notice of hearing, copies of which were duly served upon the Company and upon the Union. Pursuant to' notice a hearing was held on June 14, 1940, in Baltimore, Maryland, before Herbert O. Eby, the Trial Examiner duly 25 N L R. B, No. 13. 60 THE MUSKIN SHOE COMPANY 61 designated by the Board. The Company was represented-by counsel and the Union by its representative; both participated in the hearing and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross- examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues. During the course of the hearing the Trial Examiner made several rulings on objections to the admission of evidence. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudi- cial errors were committed . The rulings are hereby affirmed. Upon the entire record in the proceedings, the Board makes the following: FIN DINGS OF FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY The Muskin Shoe Company is a Maryland corporation, engaged in the manufacture and sale of shoes at plants located at Westminster, Maryland, Millersburg, Pennsylvania, and Baltimore, Maryland. The instant proceeding is concerned solely with the Baltimore. plant. Approximately 98 per cent of all raw materials purchased for use at the Baltimore plant, consisting principally of leather, rubber, and textile products, are obtained from States other than Maryland. The total sales from the Baltimore plant approximate $600,000 a year. Approximately 98 per cent of the products manufactured at the Balti- more plant are shipped to points in States other than Maryland. The Company employs at its Baltimore plant in the regular course of business approximately 340 persons. Its weekly pay roll at that plant varies between $5,000 and $6,000. It. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED United Shoe Workers of America is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations. Its membership requirements do not appear in the record. III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION On or about April 5, 1940, the Union requested the Company to bargain collectively with it. The Company informed the Union that- it would enter` into negotiations with the Union when the Union had produced proof that it represented a majority of the employees of the Company. At a subsequent conference between the parties and the Regional Director, held to consider a method of determining the question of representation, the Company requested that a hearing before the Board and an election be held. I We find that a question has arisen concerning the representation of employees of the Company. 62 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 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 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 stipulated that the appropriate unit consists of all production and maintenance employees of the Company at its Baltimore plant, excluding supervisory and clerical employees. We see no reason for departing from the unit agreed upon. We find that all production and maintenance employees of the Company at its Baltimore plant, excluding supervisory and clerical 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 Trial Examiner introduced in evidence a written statement by the Regional Director tending to show that at the time of the hearing the Union represented a substantial number of the employees of the Company within the unit herein determined to be appropriate. We find that the question which has arisen concerning representation can best be resolved by an election by secret ballot. At the hearing the parties agreed that employees eligible to vote in an election should be those who were employed as of May 15, 1940. We shall direct that those eligible to vote in the election shall be the employees in the appropriate unit who were employed on May 15, 1940, including employees who did not 'work on that date because they were ill or on vacation, or were then or have since been tempo- rarily laid off, but excluding those who have since quit or been discharged for cause. 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 The Muskin Shoe Company, Baltimore,. THE MUSKIN SHOE COMPANY 63 Maryland, within the meaning of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 2. All production and maintenance employees of the Company at its Baltimore, Mar±land, plant, excluding supervisory and clerical em- ployees, constitute a unit appropriate for the purpose of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the 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 Relations Act, and pursuant to Article III, Section 8, of National Labor Rela- tions Board Rules and Regulations-Series 2, as amended, it is hereby DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation authorized by the Board to ascertain representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining with The Muskin Shoe Company, Baltimore, Maryland, an election by secret ballot shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later than thirty (30) clays from the date of this Direction of Election, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Fifth Region acting in this matter as agent for the National Labor Relations Board and subject to Article III, Section 9, of said Rules and Regula- tions, among all production and maintenance employees of The Muskin Shoe Company, Baltimore, Maryland, who were employed by it on May 15, 1940, including employees who did not work upon that date because they were ill or on vacation, or who were then or have since been temporarily laid off, but excluding supervisory and clerical employees and employees who have since quit or been discharged for cause, to determine whether or not they desire to be represented by United Shoe Workers of America, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, for the purposes of collective bargaining. MR. EDWIN S. SMITH took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Direction of Election.