Randolph Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 19, 1943

51 N.L.R.B. 1457 (N.L.R.B. 1943)

In the Matter of RANDOLPH CORPORATION and DISTRICT 12, UNITED
MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA
Case No. R-5780.-Decided August 19, 1943
Mr. Edward H. Larson, of Coulterville, Ill., for Randolph.
Messrs. E. K. Hartenstein and Seerial Thompson, of Harrisburg,
Ill., for the United.
Mr. C. C. Dreman, of Belleville, Ill., for the Progressive and Local
13; Mr. William Crompton, of Springfield, Ill., for the Progressive;
and Mr. Charles E. Chandler, of Tilden, Ill., for Local 13.
Mrs. Augusta Spaulding, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon amended petition duly filed by District 12, United Mine
Workers of, America, herein called the United, alleging that a ques-
tion affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation of
employees of Randolph Corporation, St. Louis, Missouri, herein
called Randolph, the National Labor Relations Board provided for
an appropriate hearing upon due notice before Charles K. Hackler,
Trial Examiner. Said hearing was held at Chester, Illinois, on July
27, 1943. Randolph, the United, and Progressive Mine Workers of
America, herein called the Progressive,' appeared, participated, and
were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-
examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues.
The Trial Examiner's rulings made at the hearing are free from
prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. All parties were afforded
opportunity to file briefs with the Board.
'Local Union No. 13 , herein called Local 13, chartered by the Progressive , also ap-
peared. Attorney Dreman represented the joint interests of the Progressive and Local
13 at the hearing.
51 N. L. R. B., No. 236.
1457
1458 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF RANDOLPH
Randolph Corporation is engaged in the mining, selling, and dis-
tribution of bituminous coal. It has its principal office at St. Louis,
Missouri. It operates a mine known as Eureka Mine No. 2, the only
mine directly involved in this proceeding. The mine is located about
1 mile south of Tilden, Illinois. During the period from March 1
to July 1, 1943, Randolph sold coal from the mine valued in excess
of $50,000, of which approximately 25 percent represented shipments
to points outside Illinois.
Randolph admits that it is engaged in commerce, within the mean-
ing of the National Labor Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
District 12, United Mine Workers of America, is a labor organiza-
tion, admitting to membership employees of Randolph.
Progressive Mine Workers of America is a labor organization affili-
ated .with the American Federation of Labor. Randolph's mine is
situated within District No. 1 of the Progressive's territorial opera-
tions. Local 13, chartered by the Progressive, admits to membership
employees of Randolph. ,
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
Between 1932 and 1937 the Progressive entered into a closed-shop
contract with the Jones Brothers Coal Company, herein called Jones,
then operator of Eureka Mine No. 2, concerning employees working
at the mine. On April 10, 1937, the mine shut down.
In January 1938 it was anticipated that the mine would shortly be
reopened. The Progressive and the United each claimed an interest
among the employees concerned. Pursuant to an election agreement
among Jones, the Progressive, and the United, the Regional Director
on February 26, 1938, conducted a consent election among employees
listed on the mine pay roll of March 31, 1937. The United and the
Progressive appeared on the ballot. On February 28, 1938, the
Regional Director certified to the parties the results of the election,
announcing that the Progressive had received a majority of the votes
cast. The mine remained closed until November 1942.
In November 1942, Forsyth Coal Company, herein called Forsyth,
who succeeded Jones as operator of the mine, began cleaning the mine
in preparation for coal production. On November 23, 1942, Forsyth
RANDOLPH CORPORATION 1459
entered into a written agreement with the Progressive, expiring on
March 31, 1943. By this agreement the parties made the provisions
of a master contract dated December 16, 1941, between Coal Producers
Association of Illinois, herein called the Association,2 and the Progres-
sive applicable to employees at Eureka Mine No. 2. The master con-
tract between the Association and the Progressive provided for the
recognition of the Progressive as exclusive bargaining representative
of employees of members of the Association and a closed shop, and by
its terms expired on March 31, 1943.
Forsyth called upon the Progressive to furnish men for work at the
mine. When the Progressive was unable to supply a sufficient number
of workers, Forsyth employed applicants for work, who thereafter
joined the Progressive in accordance with the provisions of the closed-
shop contract.
On February 9, 1943, the United, alleging that it represented a sub-
stantial organizational interest in employees at the mine, asked For-
syth not to -grant recognition to any other labor organization. The
United received no reply to this letter.
.On March 15, Randolph Corporation, herein called Randolph, the
employer directly involved in this proceeding, leased the mine. On
March 15, Randolph and the Progressive entered into a contract cover-
ing working conditions at the mine. Although this contract contained
no closed-shop provision, the parties treated it as a closed-shop con-
tract. The contract by its terms terminated March 31, 1943. Randolph
immediately began mining coal and increased the number of employees
at the mine accordingly.'
On March 18, 1943, the Unite wrote C. V. Beck, Florida Coal Com-
pany, claiming to represent a majority of the employees at Eureka
Mine No. 2, and protesting the contract between Randolph and the
Progressive. Beck was, and is, an official of Florida Coal Company
and president of Randolph. On the same day, the United filed the
original petition in this proceeding concerning the representation of
employees at Eureka Mine No. 2, naming C. V. Beck, Florida Coal
Company, as their employer. On March 25, Beck notified the United
that Randolph, and not Florida Coal Company, was the operator of
Eureka Mine No. 2 and stated that Randolph had inherited the
closed-shop contract between Forsyth and the Progressive, noted above.
On March 23, the Progressive and the Association extended their
The Association is an organization of various coal operators who enter into bargaining
contracts with the Progressive concerning working conditions of employees of the members
of the Association . Neither Forsyth nor Randolph , who later succeeded Forsyth as opera-
tor of the mine, was or is, a member of the Association
$ On the pay roll ending March 31 , 1943, Randolph listed 65 employees ; on April 15,
69: on April 30, 73; on May 15, 95 , on May 31, 96; on June 15, 97; on June 30. 98:
on July 15. 105 employees
540612-43-92
1460 DEC 'ISION'S OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
master contract to May 1, 1943. On March 30, the Progressive and
Randolph entered into a written contract terminating May 1, 1943,
whereby they adopted the terms of the master contract between the
Progressive and the Association. On April 30, May 27, and- June 29,
1943, the Progressive and the Association successively extended the
terms of their master contract. The extension agreement dated June
29 was for an indefinite period, subject to termination on 30 days' writ-
ten notice. On May 1 and June 30, 1943, Randolph and the Progres-
sive entered into successful extension agreements of their contract.
The agreement dated June 30 provided that the contract should be
extended indefinitely, subject to cancelation by 30 days' notice in writ-
ing. On July 7, the United filed the amended petition in this pro-
ceeding, naming Randolph as the employer of the employees involved.
The United contends that a question has arisen concerning the
representation of Randolph's employees which should be determined
by an election, pursuant to its petition filed herein. The Progressive
contends that, under the circumstances above set forth, its contract
with Randolph constitutes a bar to a determination of representatives
at this time. .Randolph takes no position with respect to this issue.
It clearly appears that on February 9, 1943, Forsyth, the predecessor
of Randolph, had knowledge that the United claimed a substantial
interest among employees at the mine. Randolph succeeded Forsyth
as operator of the mine on March 15. On March 18, the United advised
Beck, the president of Randolph, of its claims concerning employees
at the mine. This was 13 days before the agreement between Ran-
dolph and the Progressive expired. It thus appears that, prior to the
negotiation of the various renewal agreements between the Progressive
and the Association and the Progressive and Randolph, Randolph had
notice of the United's claim concerning employees at the mine. We
note further that the last renewal agreements between the respective
parties provided for an indefinite extension of the contract, subject to
30 days' written notice. Such renewal for an indefinite period is no
bar to a determination of representatives, pursuant to a petition filed
by a rival organization claiming to represent a substantial number of
employees concerned.4
A statement prepared by a Field Examiner and received into evi-
dence at the hearing indicates that the United and the Progressive
each represents a substantial number of employees in the unit herein
found appropriate.5
' Matter of McLouth Steel Corporation, 30 N L R. B. 1000, 1002.
n The United submitted 34 authorization cards, of which 19 appear to bear genuine
original signatures of employees of Randolph listed on the pay roll of June 5, 1943. The
cards are dated between March 27 and April 8, 1943.
The Progressive submitted 93 authorization cards, of which 90 appeat to bear genuine
RANDOLPH' CORPORATION 1461
We find that a question has arisen concerning the representation of
employees of Randolph, within the meaning of Section 9 (c) and
Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The parties agree that all production and maintenance employees
of Ranodlph at Eureka Mine No. 2, excluding clerical employees,e the
company weighman, the mine superintendent, the mine manager, the
top foreman,, and the assistant foremen, constitute an appropriate
unit.
At the time of the hearing Randolph's operations did not justify the
hiring of top foremen and assistant foremen. The unit, as phrased,
is customary in the mine industry. Randolph intends to increase the
number of shifts at the mine and will probably employ other super-
visory employees. We will exclude from the bargaining unit of pro-
duction and maintenance employees, clerical employees, the company
weighman, the mine superintendent, the mine manager, and all other
supervisory employees who have authority to hire, promote, discharge,
discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees or
effectively recommend such action.
We find that all production and maintenance employees of Ran-
dolph at Eureka Mine No. 2, excluding clerical employees, the com-
pany weighman, the mine superintendent, the mine manager, and all
other supervisory employees who have authority to hire, promote,
discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of em-
ployees or effectively recommend such action, constitute a unit ap-
propriate for the purposes of collective bargaining, within the mean-
ing of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
We fiilcl that the question which has arisen' concerning the repre-
sentation of employees of Randolph can best be resolved by an election
by secret ballot.
of urinal signatures of employees listed on the Company's pay roll of June 5, 1943 These
curds are dated in April , May, and June, 1941.
There are approximately 100 employees in the appropriate unit
The Progiessive contends that the United has failed to show a substantial representa-
tion among employees of Randolph in the agreed bargaining unit. Evidence submitted
by the United indicates that it represented 19 of 95 employees listed on the pay toll of
June 5, 1943 Taking into account the employment needs of Randolph from the time
it assumed operation of the mine in March up to the time of the hearing , and its applica-
tion of the closed -shop provision of the contract between the Association and the Progres-
sii e , we find that the showing of the United constitutes a substantial interest under the
cii curnstances set forth above Cf Hatter of Service Wood Heel Company, 41 N L R. B.
45. 47
6 At the time of the hearing Randolph employed no clerical workers at the mine. Clerical
work for Eureka Mine No 2 is presently handled in connection with that of another mine
at Coulterville , Illinois
1462 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The United contends that the Board should determine eligibility to
vote in the election by a pay i oll dated between March 15, the date of
the contract between Randolph and the Progressive, and June 5, the
date of the pay roll used by the Regional Director for checking the
authorization cards of the rival organization. On March 15, Randolph
listed approximately 30 employees. On March 31, the date when the
closed-shop contract terminated, Randolph listed 65 employees. On
June 30, it listed 98 and, on July 15, 105 employees. Randolph in-
tends to hire an additional 10 or 15, employees in' the near future.
While it appears that all employees hired since March 15 have been
required to join the Progressive as a condition of employment, we do
not, tinder the circumstances of this case, deem this sufficient cause to
deprive employees hired subsequent to March 15 of the right to vote
in the election. We shall accordingly use our usual date to determine
eligibility in the election.
The Progressive requests that its name appear upon ballot as
Progressive Mine Workers of America, District No. 1. We shall
grant the request.
Those eligible to vote in the election shall be all employees in
the, unit found appropriate in Section IV, above, who were em-
ployed during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date
of the Direction of Election herein; subject to the limitations and
additions set forth in the Direction.
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 9, of National Labor
Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 2, as amended, it is
hereby
DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation to ascertain representa-
tives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Randolph Cor-
poration, St. Louis, Missouri, an election by secret ballot shall be
conducted as early as possible, but not later than thirty (30) days
from the date of this Direction, under the direction and supervision
of the Regional Director for the Fourteenth Region, acting in this
matter as agent for the National Labor Relations Board, and sub-
ject to Article III, Section 10, of said Rules and Regulations, among
the employees of Randolph in the unit found appropriate in Section
IV, above, who were employed during the pay-roll period imme-
diately preceding the date of this Direction, including employees
who did not work during said pay-roll period because they were ill
RANDOLPH CORPORATION 1463
,or on vacation or temporarily laid off, and including employees in
the armed forces of the United States who present themselves in
person at the polls, but excluding employees who have since quit or
been discharged for cause, to determine whether they desire to be
represented by District 12, United Mine Workers of America, or by
Progressive Mine Workers of America, District No. 1, for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining, or by neither.
CHAHIMAN Maus took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Direction of Election.