B. & B. Shoe Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 29, 1939

15 N.L.R.B. 774 (N.L.R.B. 1939)

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.