G. Levor & Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 22, 1946

71 N.L.R.B. 738 (N.L.R.B. 1946)

In the Matter of G. LEVOR & CO., INC., EMPLOYER and INTERNATIONAh
FUR AND LEATHER WORKERS UNION , CIO, PETITIONER
Case No. 3-R-1289.-Decided November 02, 19416
Mr. John W. Morgan, of Boston, Mass., for the Employer.
Mr. Harry Porefsky, of Gloversville, N. Y., for the Petitioner.
Mr. Harold W. Ward, of Gloversville, N. Y., for the Intervenor.
Mr . Herbert C. Kane , of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at Glovers-
ville, New York, on August 1, 1946, before Milton A. Nixon, hearing
officer. The hearing officer 's rulings made at the hearing are free from
prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upp i the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations
Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF TILE EMPLOYER
G. Levor S- Co., Inc., a New York corporation having its prin-
cipal place of business in Gloversville, New York, is engaged in the
tanning , of shoe and glove leather . During the year ending June 30,
1946, the Employer purchased raw materials valued in -e-xeess -,of
$1;000,000, of which approximately 95 percent was shipped to it from
points outside the State of New York. During the same period the
Employer sold finished products valued in excess of $2,000,000, of
which approximately 95 percent was shipped to points outside the
State of New York.
The Employer admits , for the purpose of this proceeding, and we
find, that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
National Labor Relations Act.
71 N. L. R B , No 124.
738
G. LEVOR & CO., INC.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
739
The Petitioner is a labor organization affiliated with Congress,of
Industrial Organizations , claiming to represent employees of the
Employer.
Adirondack Leather Workers Union, herein called the Intervenor,
is an unaffiliated labor organization , claiming to represent employees
,of the Employer.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
On July 31, 1944, the Employer and the Intervenor entered into
a collective bargaining contract which provided that it was to continue
in effect until July 31, 1946, and from year to year thereafter in the
absence of written notice by either party, at least 30 days before July
31,'of any year, of a desire to terminate. Since its execution, the con-
tract has been amended from time to time, but the duration and auto-
matic renewal clauses have not been affected by these changes"
On February 18, 1946, the Petitioner notified the Employer that it
represented a majority of the Employer's employees, and asked the
Employer to refrain from prematurely extending the 1944 contract.
On February 27,1946, the Employer replied, stating that the 1944 con-
tract was effective until July 31, 1946, and would continue thereafter
in the absence of requisite notice. On June 3, 1946, the Petitioner filed
the petition in this case.
The Intervenor raises the 1944 contract as a bar to this proceding.
But inasmuch as the petition in this case was filed before the operative
date of the 1944 contract's automatic renewal clause, we conclude that
the contract does not preclude a current determination of repre-
sentatives.'
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. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The parties agree that a unit of all production and maintenance
employees of the Employer, excluding office employees, foremen, and
all other supervisory employees, is appropriate. They disagree, how-
ever, with respect to assistant foremen,' salaried employees, and the two
plant clerical employees, the Petitioner desiring their exclusion, the
Intervenor requesting their inclusion, and" the Employer taking a
neutral position.
Matter of Michigan Producers' Dais y Company, 68 N L R B. 6
2 These employ ees are carried on the Emplo yei's pay roll as working foremen.
740 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On March 20, 1941, a consent election was conducted in an agreed
unit of all employees of the Employer excluding, among others,
assistant foremen, salaried workers, office employees, clerical em-
ployees, and maintenance employees. The Intervenor won the election
and in 1941 the Employer entered into a contract with it covering
the employees in the voting unit. Thereafter, on August 12,
1943, the Board issued a Decision and Direction of Election,3 estab-
lishing as appropriate a unit identical to that upon which the 1941
contract was based. In its discussion of the appropriate unit the
Board specifically excluded plant clerical employees; these employees
were encompassed by the term, "all clerical employees," which was
mentioned as an excluded category in the Board's final unit finding.
On May 16, 1944, the Board certified the Independent in this unit .1
In July of that year the Employer and the Independent entered into
the 1944 contract adverted to in Section III, above. And the em-
ployees embraced by this agreement were those included by the Board
in the unit established in its Decision and Direction of Election of
August 12, 1943.5
In the light of the Board's prior unit determination and the contract
history between the Employer and the Independent, we are persuaded
that assistant foremen, salaried employees, and the two plant clericals
should be excluded from the unit hereinafter found appropriate.'
We find that all production and maintenance employees of the
Employer, excluding office employees, salaried employees, clerical
employees (including the two plant clerical employees), foremen,
assistant foremen, and all other supervisory employees with authority
to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in
the status of employees, or effectively recommend such action, consti-
tute 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 G. Levor & Co., Inc., Glovers-
8 51 N. L. R B. 1248.
4 56 N. L R B. 574
6 After this contract was made, the Independent was also certified by the Board as the
bargaining representative of the Employer's maintenance employees. On January 20, 1945,
the 1944 agreement was amended so as to enlarge the scope of, the contract unit to include
maintenance employees
It appears, in any event, that assistant foremen are supervisory employees within the
meaning of the Board's customary definition ; and it also appears that the plant clerical
employees are timekeepers, one of whom spends a minor portion of his working time mix-
ing chemicals which are used in the production process. Although the Independent asserts
that the plant clericals were permitted to vote without challenge in the two elections
among production employees and there is some testimony that they were bargained for
under the terms of the collective agreements with the Employer, it is unmistakably clear
that these employees were specifically excluded from the unit found appropriate by the
Board in 1943, and that the 1944 contract, which excluded "clerical employees," was in-
tended to conform to the Board's unit determination.
C. LEVOR & CO., INC. 741
ville, New York,'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 Third 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 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 represented by
International Fur and Leather Workers Union, CIO, or by Adiron-
dack Leather Workers Union, for the purposes of collective
bargaining, or by neither.