Atlas Felt Products Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsMay 16, 1946

68 N.L.R.B. 1 (N.L.R.B. 1946)

In the Matter of ATLAS FELT PRODUCTS COMPANY and U NITED TEXTILE WORKERS OF AMERICA , A. F. OF L. Case No. 1-R-2906.-Decided May 16,1946 Mr. Barney Shinberg, of Westerly, R. I., for the Company. Mr. Frank Sgambato, of Providence, R. I., for the AFL. Mr. Joseph C. Novo, of Woonsocket, R. I., and Mr. Augustus Simas, of West Warwick, R. I., for the.CIO. Mr. John A. Nevros, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon an amended petition duly filed by United Textile Workers of America, A. F. of L., herein called the AFL, alleging that a question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation of employ- ees of Atlas Felt Products Company, Westerly, Rhode Island, herein called the Company, the National Labor Relations Board provided for an appropriate hearing upon due notice before Robert E. Greene, Trial Ex- aminer. The hearing was held at Westerly, Rhode island, on March 22, 1946. The Company, the A. F. L., and Textile Workers Union of Amer- ica (CIO), herein called the CIO, appeared and participated. All parties were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross- examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues. At the hearing the CIO moved to dismiss the petition on the grounds that its contract with the Company is a bar to this proceeding and that the AFL's petition was not timely filed. The Trial Examiner reserved ruling on this motion for the Board. For reasons set forth in Section III, infra, the motion is hereby denied. 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. 68 N. L R. B., No. 1. 1 2 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY Atlas Felt Products Company, a Massachusetts corporation, with its principal office and place of business at Westerly, Rhode Island, is en- gaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of felt products for the hat, shoe, millinery, and garment trades. The Company annually purchases raw materials consisting principally of wool, cotton, and wool waste, valued in excess of, ,250,000, of which substantially all is procured from sources outside the State of Rhode Island. Substantially all its manu- factured products, valued in excess of $500,000 annually, is shipped to points outside the State. The Company admits, and we find, that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED United Textile Workers of America, affiliated with the American Fed- eration of Labor, is a labor organization admitting to membership em- ployees of the Company. Textile Workers Union of America, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, is a labor organization admitting to member- ship employees of the Company. III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION By letter dated February 13, 1946, the AFL requested the Company to recognize it as the collective bargaining representative of the Com- pany's employees. The Company declined to accede to the AFL's request asserting that it will accord such recognition only if the AFL is certified by the Board in an appropriate unit. The CIO contends that the present proceeding, is barred by virtue of a valid outstanding collective bargaining contract between the CIO and the Company which was automatically renewed,to February 1, 1947. The Company and the AFL, while conceding that notice of termination of the agreement was not served by either contracting party within the time provided, there for, maintain that by their conduct subsequent to the auto- matic renewal date of the agreement, the contracting parties terminated it as of February 1, 1946, and that, consequently, there i' no existing bar f, a present determination of representatives. ATLAS FELT PRODUCTS COMPANY 3 On January 18, 1945, the CIO and the Company entered into a col- lective bargaining agreement for a period to expire on February 1, 1946. The agreement provided that it should "continue in full force and effect from year to year following February 1, 1946, unless either party gives due notice in writing by registered mail of its desire to change, modify, amend or terminate sixty (60) days prior to the annual termination date." The contract further provided that "Either party may request a general revision in rates of pay upon written notice to the other party mailed or delivered not less than thirty (30) days prior to the date upon which it is desired to have such revision become effective." No notice of a desire to change, modify, amend, or terminate the agreement was served by either the CIO or the Company within the time provided for in the agree- ment. However, at a conference on January 10, 1946, the CIO pre- sented to the Company a mimeographed statement of demands entitled "Summary Statement of Demands by Textile Workers Union of America in Woolen and Worsted Mills" and requested that the Company negotiate a new contract on the basis of these demands.' Pursuant to the request of the CIO, the Company entered into negotiations for the execution of a new contract . On February 6, 1946, the parties reached agreement on terms. The agreement was prepared in draft form but was unsigned pend- ing ratification by the local union of the CIO. The Local refused to ratify the contract and it has accordingly remained unsigned.2 Where, as here, the Company and the contracting union voluntarily enter into negotiations for a substantial modification of a collective bar- gaining contract subsequent to the automatic renewal date, the Board has held that the parties thereby evince an intent to terminate such contract, thus rendering inoperative the renewal clause and relieving a rival claim- ant of the duty it otherwise would have had to present its representation claim prior to the automatic renewal date.3 We find no merit in the further contention of the CIO that the nego- tiations from January 10, 1946, to February 6, 1946, were for the sole pur- pose of securing revisions in rates of pay as provided for in the agree- merit. Not only was there no written notice submitted for such general revision, but the negotiations encompassed new terms and conditions including not only a change in wage rates but also, among other things, 'In this and subsequent conferences with the Company , the principal CIO representative stated that he was seeking to negotiate a "new contract " to replace the old contract which was to terminate on February 1, 1946 2 Not only did the local union refuse to ratify the agreement with the Company but a majority of the members present at the ratification meeting voted to withdraw from the CIO. At a subsequent meeting called by a National Representative of the CIO a small number of members met and ratified only the wage provisions of the new agreement However, this second meeting was held on February 25, 1946 , subsequent to the date on which the AFL served its demand for recognition on the Company 3 See Matter of Empire Worsted Mills , Inc, 63 N L R B 1446; Matter of Iroquois Gas Corporation, 61 N. L. R. B 302; and Matter of Sunft & Company, 58 N. L. R. B 1258 696966-46-2 4 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD insurance benefits not provided for by the old contract. Accordingly, we find that the 1945 contract was not automatically renewed and, conse- quently, that it does not constitute a bar to the instant proceeding. A statement of a Board agent, introduced into evidence at the hearing, indicates that the AFL represents a substantial number of employees in the unit hereinafter found appropriate.4 We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning the representation of employees of the Company, within the meaning of Sec- tion 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT We find, in accordance with the stipulation of the parties, that all em- ployees of the Company at its Westerly, Rhode Island, plant, excluding office and clerical employees, executives, managers, superintendents, as- sistant superintendents, and all other supervisory employees with author- ity to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or effectively recommend such action , constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.' V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES We shall direct that the question concerning representation which has arisen be resolved by an election by secret ballot among employees in the appropriate unit who were employed during the pay-roll period imme- diately 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 Relations Act, and pursuant to Article III, Section 9, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 3, as amended, it is hereby DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Atlas Felt Products Com- pany, Westerly, Rhode Island, an election by secret ballot shall be con- The Field Examiner reported that the AFL submitted 61 membership applications , of which 56 bear the names of employees listed on the Company's pay roll for the period ending February 23, 1946, and that there are approximately 58 employees in the appropriate unit The CIO relies upon its contract , referred to above, as evidence of its interest in the proceedings. g The agreed unit is identical with the one described in the contract between the CIO and the Company. ATLAS FELT PRODUCTS COMPANY 5 ducted 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 First Region, acting in this matter as agent for the National Labor Relations Board, and subject to Article III, Sections 10 and 11, of said Rules and Regulations, among employees in the unit found appropriate in Section IV, above, who were employed during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of this Direction, including employees who did not work during said pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation or temporarily laid off, and including employees in the armed forces of the United States who present themselves in per- son at the polls, but excluding those employees who have since quit or been discharged for cause and have not been rehired or reinstated prior to the date of the election, to determine whether they desire to be repre- sented by United Textile Workers of America, A. F. of L., or by Textile Workers Union of America (CIO), for the purposes of collective bar- gaining , or by neither. CHAIRMAN HERZOG took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Direction of Election.