Embassy Manufacturing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsOct 25, 1946

71 N.L.R.B. 430 (N.L.R.B. 1946)

In the Matter of EMBASSY MANUFACTURING COMPANY, EMPLOYER and AMALGAMATED CLOTHING WORKERS OF AMERICA. C. I. O., PETITIONER Case No. 14-R-1497.-Decided October 25,1946 Messrs. Emanual E. Davis , Harry Kolker , and Murray Steinberg, of St. Louis, Mo., for the Employer. Messrs. Frank Nap'olitano and Ralph Troisi, of St. Louis, Mo., for the Petitioner. Mrs. Rose West , of Afton, Mo., and Messrs . Edwin H. Stern and John ' I. Railings, of St. Louis, Mo., for the Intervenor. Mr. Benj. E. Cook, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at St. Louis, Missouri, on August 7, 1946, before Elmer E. Hunt, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudi- cial error and are hereby affirmed. At the hearing, the Intervenor ,moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that an existing contract is a bar to this proceeding. For reasons stated hereinafter, the motion is hereby denied.' Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations Board makes the following : i The Intervenor objected to the hearing officer' s refusal to permit an examination into the authenticity and sufficiency of the authorization cards submitted by the Petitioner. We find no error in the hearing officer's rulings in this respect. As we have repeatedly stated in previous decisions involving this question, the requirement that prima facie evi- dence of representation be submitted in connection with the filing of a petition ih"a repre- sentation proceeding is an administrative expedient adopted by the Board to enable it to determine for itself whether or not further proceedings are warranted and thus avoid need- less dissipation of the Government's time, effort, and funds Authorization cards are not submitted as a basis for determining the bargaining representative, if any. The election is the medium for determining this question . In view of the limited administrative purpose which the cards serve, the Boai d does not permit an opposing party to question the authenticity of the signatures attached to the cards. Moreover, under present practice, the report of the Board's Field Examiner as to the evidence of representation submitted by the various unions is no longer admitted into evidence See Matter of 0 D. Jennings & Com- pany, 68 N L R B 516, and cases cited therein 71 N. L. R. B., No. 66. 430 EMBASSY MANUFACTURING COMPANY FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER 431 Embassy Manufacturing Company, a Missouri corporation, has its principal place of business in St. Louis, Missouri, where it is engaged in the manufacture and sale of trousers. During the calendar year 1945, the Employer purchased raw materials valued in excess of $25,- 000, more than 25 percent of which was shipped to its plant from points outside the State of Missouri. During the same period, the Employer sold finished products valued in excess of $100,000, approximately 10 percent of which was shipped to points outside the State. The Employer admits and we find that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED The Petitioner is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, claiming to represent employees of the Employer. Local Union No. 67, United Garment Workers of America, herein called Intervenor, is a labor organization affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, claiming to represent employees of the Employer. III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION On September 5, 1944, the Intervenor and Society Hat Brand Com- pany entered into a collective bargaining contract for a period of 2 years with provision for a further extension of 1 year in the event that neither party served notice at least 30 days before September 5, 1946, of an intention to terminate the contract. On June 5, 1945, the Employer leased the premises and equipment here involved and as- sumed the aforesaid contract. On June 21, 1946, the Petitioner re- quested the Employer to recognize it as bargaining agent for the Em- ployer's production and maintenance employees. On June 24, 1946, the Employer refused such request because of its contract with the Intervenor. On June 26, 1946, the Petitioner filed its petition with the Board. The record further discloses that in April 1946, the Em- ployer and the Intervenor opened negotiations for a new collective bargaining contract. Although the terms of the proposed contract were reduced to writing by June 11, 1946, there is nothing in the record to indicate that it was ever signed. The Intervenor contends that the 1944 contract is a bar to this pro- ceeding and it implies that the unsigned contract is also a bar. Neithe^ contention has merit . The Intervenor filed its petition with the Board prior to August 5, 1946, the Mill B date of the 1944 contract which is the operative date of the automatic renewal clause. Accordingly. 717734-47-vol. 71-29 432 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the 1944 agreement is not a bar.' As to the unsigned agreement, it is not a bar because it was not signed. We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning the representation of employees of the Employer, within the meaning of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. IV. TIIE APPROPRIATE U IT The Petitioner and the Intervenor agreed that all production and maintenance employees, exclusive of supervisors, constitute an appro- priate unit. The Employer took the position that the question of unit was one for the Board's discretion. The unit' sought by the two unions is customary in manufacturing industries. Accordingly, we find that all production and maintenance em- ployees at the Employer's St. Louis, Missouri, plant, excluding all supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge, dis- cipline, 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. DIRECTION OF ELECTION As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Embassy Manufacturing Com- pany, St. Louis, Missouri, an election by secret ballot shall be con- ducted as early as possible, but not later than thirty (30) clays 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 subject to Sections 203.55 and 203.56, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 4, among the 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 person at the polls, but excluding those em- ployees 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 represented by Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, C. I. 0., or by Local Union No. 67, United Garment Workers of America, A. F. L., for the purposes of collective bargaining, or by neither. CIIAIII31AN HERroG took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Direction of Election. 2 See Matter of Beatty Logging Co , 62 N L R B 266