Hood Rubber Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsFeb 16, 1940

20 N.L.R.B. 485 (N.L.R.B. 1940)

In the Matter Of HOOD RUBBER COMPANY, INc. and RUBBER WORKERS= FEDERAL LABOR UNION No. 21914 (AFL) In the Matter of B. F. GOODRICH COMPANY and UNITED RUBBER WORKERS OF AMERICA Cases Nos . R-166 and R-1603, respectively.-Decided February? 10, 1940 Rubber Products Manufacturing Industry-Investigation of Representatives:- controversy concerning representation of employees:, rival organizations; em- ployer's refusal to grant exclusive recognition to any of the labor organizations at one of five plants-Unit Appropriate for Collective Bargaining: dispute as to- whether employees at all five plants constitute a single appropriate unit or whether production and maintenance employees on an hourly or piece-rate basis, including non-supervisory instructors , warehouse and shipping employees , and retail-store employees , but excluding executives , supervisory employees , watchmen, office- employees , and technical advisers at one of the plants constitute a separate ap- propriate unit ; plants separately managed, and each has a labor relations super - visor ; union claiming employer-wide unit has separate exclusive bargaining con- tracts covering the employees in two plants , in one of which - about 60 per cent of- all the Companies ' employees work ; past collective bargaining recognized in- dividual status of plants ; unit limited to one plant of the employer ; ( Smith, dissenting ) favoring employer-wide unit , covering all five plants-Representa- tives: eligibility to participate in choice : because of large lay-off after close of hearing, eligibility to vote determined as of pay -roll period preceding date of commencement of hearing , upon agreement of parties-Election Ordered: among employees of one plant-Order: dismissing petition for employer -wide unit where- employer-wide unit not found appropriate. Mr. Edward Schneider, for the Board. 31r. J. L. McKnight, of Akron, Ohio, for Goodrich. Warner, Staclepole, Stetson cc Bradlee, by Mr. Richard J. Cotten and Mr. Richard J. Walsh, of Boston, Mass ., for Hood. Mr. Herbert S. Thatcher, of Washington, D. C., and Mr. John J.. Murphy, of Boston, Mass., for Local 21914. Mr. Stanley Denlinger, of Akron, Ohio, for the United. Mr. Claude V. Freeman, of Lynn, Mass., and Mr. Donald Creeden, of Medford , Mass., for Arrow. Mr. Ernest Umpleby, of Schenectady, N. Y., for the Pattern Makers_ Mr. Louis Cokin, of counsel to the Board. 20 N. L . R. B., No. 51. 485 283031-41-vol. 20-32 486 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD . DECISION DIRECTION OF ELECTION AND ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE On June 3, 1939, Rubber Workers Federal Labor Union No. 21914, herein called Local 21914, filed with the Regional Director for the First Region (Boston, Massachusetts) a petition alleging that a question had arisen concerning the representation of employees of Hood Rub- ber Company, Inc., Watertown, Massachusetts, herein called Hood,. and requesting an investigation and certification of representatives pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. On September 26, 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 investi- gation and authorized the Regional Director to conduct it and to pro- vide a for an appropriate hearing upon due notice. On November 14, 1939, the Regional Director issued a notice of hearing, copies of which were duly served upon the Company, Local 21914, and upon United Rubber Workers of America, herein called the United, and Arrow Rubber Protective Association, herein called Arrow, labor organizations claiming to represent employees directly affected by the investigation. On November 16, 1939, the United filed with the Regional Di- rector for the First Region a petition alleging that a question affect- ing commerce had arisen concerning the representation of employees in all the rubber plants of B. F. Goodrich Company, Akron, Ohio, herein called Goodrich,' including Hood, and requesting an investi- gation and certification of representatives pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the Act. On November 18, 1939, the Board, acting pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the Act and Article III, Section 3, of its Rules and Regulations, ordered an investigation and authorized the Re- gional Director to conduct it and to provide for an appropriate hearing upon due notice, and, acting pursuant to Article III, Sec- tion 10 (c) (2), of its Rules and Regulations, ordered that the two cafes be consolidated for all purposes. On November 20, 1939, the Regional Director issued a notice of continuance of hearing. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held i Hood and Goodrich'.are herein collectively called the Companies. HOOD RUBBEIR 0O-1IPANYY INIC. 487 in the consolidated cases on December 1, 2, 4, 5, and 14, 1939, at Boston, Massachusetts, before Joseph L. Maguire, the Trial Ex- aminer duly designated by the Board. At the commencement of the hearing, the Trial Examiner granted motions to intervene filed by Arrow and Pattern Makers League of North America.2 The Board, Hood, Goodrich, Local 21914, the United, Ariow, and Pattern Makers League of North America were represented by counsel, and par- ticipated in the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues was afforded all parties. At the commencement of the hearing, counsel for Hood moved to sever the two cases. The motion was denied. At the close of the hearing Local 21914 moved to amend its petition to conform to the proof adduced at the hearing. The motion was granted. During the course of the hearing the Trial Examiner made several rulings on other motions and on objections to the admission of evidence. The Board has reviewed all the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudicial errors were com- mitted. The rulings are hereby affirmed. On December 15, 19, and 21, 1939, requests for permission to argue orally before the Board and to file briefs were made by Goodrich, Hood, the United, and -Local' 21914. On January 2 and 4, 1940, Goodrich, Hood, and the United filed briefs in support of their respective contentions. Pursuant to notice duly served upon all the parties, a hearing was held for the purpose of oral argument before the Board on January 4, 1940, in Washington, D. C. Hood, Goodrich, Local 21914, and the United were represented by counsel and participated in the argu- ment. On January 9 and 10, 1940, Hood and Goodrich filed-^briefs in response to the United's brief. On January 12, 1940, the United filed a memorandum in reply to Goodrich's brief of January 10, 1940. On January 12, 1940, Local 21914 filed with the Board a request stating that after the close of the hearing Hood laid off about 400 employees at the Watertown plant and that Local 21914 and the United desired that the pay roll nearest the date of the commence- ment of the hearing be used to .determine eligibility. to vote .in the event that the Board directed an election among the employees at the Hood plant. Copies of the request were served upon the United and Hood. On January 17, 1940, Hood filed with the Board a docu- ment stating that it had no objection to Local 21914's request. On January 16, 1940, Goodrich filed a memorandum in reply to the United's memorandum of January 12, 1940. ' This labor organization intervened for the purposes of protecting its existing contracts with Goodrich. â€¢488 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 COMPANIES B. F. Goodrich Company, a corporation organized under the laws of New York in May 1912, is engaged in the manufacture and sale of over 32,000 rubber products. Its principal office is in Akron, Ohio, and it has plants in Akron, Ohio; Los Angeles, California; Oaks, Pennsylvania ; and Cadillac, Michigan. In November 1939 more than 11,000 persons Were employed at these plants. Goodrich also owns two selling subsidiaries and maintains retail stores and warehouses for the distribution of its products in all the principal cities of the United States. Approximately 80 per cent of the raw materials used by Goodrich at its plants, valued at more than $50,000,000 annually, and approxi= mately 65 per cent of the finished products of Goodrich, valued at approximately $100,000,000 annually, are transported in interstate commerce. Goodrich is one of the largest producers of rubber goods in the United States. Hood Rubber Company, Inc., is a Delaware corporation having its general offices and plant in Watertown, Massachusetts, and is a wholly owned subsidiary of Goodrich. Hood is engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of rubber and canvas footwear, rubberized textile products, and miscellaneous rubber products. It employs over 4000 workers and produces one-fifth of all the rubber and canvas footwear manufactured in the United States. During 1938 Hood purchased raw materials valued at approxi- mately $3,300,000, about three-fourths of which represented ship- ments received from points outside Massachusetts. During the same year Hood's sales of its manufactured products amounted to approxi- mately $14,550,000, about 91 per cent of which were shipped outside Massachusetts. Hood maintains wholesale warehouses in 16 States for the distribution of its products.,' II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED Rubber Workers Federal Labor Union No. 21914 is labor organ- ization affiliated with the American Federation of Labor. It admits to membership all the production, maintenance, and shipping -em- ployees of Hood at Watertown, excluding supervisory and clerical employees. 3 Flood also operates a plant at Niagara Falls. New York, where it is engaged in the manufacture of battery cases. The employees at that plant are covered by a contract with the United Automobile Workers of America (C. I. 0.). HOOD RUBBER COMPANY, INC. 489 United Rubber Workers of America is a labor organization affili- ated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations. It admits to membership all the production, maintenance, and shipping employees of Hood and all the Goodrich plants, excluding supervisory and clerical employees. Arrow Rubber Protective Association is an unaffiliated labor or- ganization admitting to membership the production, maintenance, and shipping employees of Hood. HI. TILE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION On April 15, 1939, Local 21914, claiming to represent a majority of the employees at the Hood plant, requested the manager of that plant to bargain with it as the exclusive representative of the pro- duction and maintenance employees. He refused to bargain with Local 21914, prior to certification by this Board that it had been designated as representative by the majority of Hood's employees in an appropriate unit. We find that a question has arisen concerning the representation of employees of the Companies. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION UPON COMMERCE We find that the question concerning representation which has arisen, occurring in connection with the operations of the Companies described in Section I, above, have a close, intimate, and _ substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT The United contends that all the production, maintenance, and shipping employees in the Goodrich plants at Los Angeles, California; Akron, Ohio; Oaks, Pennsylvania; Cadillac, Michigan; and the Hood plant at Watertown, Massachusetts, constitute single unit appro-. priate for the purposes of collective bargaining. Goodrich and Local 21914 claim that the employees at each plant constitute a separate bargaining unit; and Local 21914, Arrow, and Hood contend that the employees at the Hood plant, in Watertown, constitute a separate bargaining unit. Each plant of the Companies has its own general manager who is responsible for production, hours, and wages for that plant and has the authority to enter into contracts with labor organizations. Each plant has its own labor relations director and employment manager, 490 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD who are responsible for the hiring and discharging of employees, the settling of grievances, and the maintenance of harmonious labor rela-; tions at each particular plant. There is no interchange between the. plants of the Companies of employees, semi-manufactured goods, or raw materials, with the exception of a small amount of reclaimed, rubber. There is a stock distribution and control department at Akron that schedules production at the Akron plants and assigns to the other plants, with the exception of Hood at Watertown, produc-, don they can handle in excess of their territorial business . The major raw materials for all the plants except Hood, are purchased and con- tracted for in Akron. Wages, hours, working conditions, and manu- facturing processes vary greatly at the different plants. The United has never attempted to bargain with the Companies on an employer- wide basis. On May 27, 1938, Local 5 of the United and Goodrich entered into an exclusive bargaining contract covering employees at the six Good- rich plants in Akron.4 This contract remained in effect until Decem- ber 1, 1938. On March 1, 1939, the same parties entered into an exclusive bargaining contract to remain in effect until December 31, 1939. On February 8, 1939, Local 43 of the United and Goodrich entered into and exclusive bargaining contract covering the employees at the Los Angeles plant. This contract remained in effect until October 1, 1939. The United claims no membership at the Cadillac plant and a small number of members at the Hood plant at Watertown and at the. Oaks plant. The following chart sets forth relevant matters in connection with each of the plants : Number Number Number Rubber plants of the Numberof em- of members of members of members Collective bargaining agreements Companies eeslo claimed claimed claimed p y by by Local by United 21914 Arrow - - - - - - - - - - - - 1. Akron , Ohio (6 plants)- - - 9,891 - - - 9, 100 - - - __________ _________ Exclusive bargaining contract with United, May 27, 1938, until De- cember 1, 1938 . Exclusive bargain- ing contract with United, March 1, 1939, until December 31, 1939. Contract with Pattern Makers. 2. Hood at Watertown , 3,380 225 1 , 680 125 Massachusetts. 3. Cadillac , Michigan --- 415' 0 ---------- Oaks, Pennsylvania -- 5. Los Angeles, Cali- 317 659 50 540 ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- Exclusive bargaining contract with fornia. - - United , February 18, 1939, until October 1, 1939. In considering whether, in view of the foregoing facts, the Los Angeles, Akron, Cadillac, Oaks, and Hood Watertown plants might 4 The six plants in Akron are operated as one plant by Goodrich and are under the supervision of one manager. HOOD RUBBER C'OM'PANY, INIC. 491 properly be deemed to constitute a single bargaining unit, we- note that while the United has contracts covering the employees at the Los Angeles and Akron plants, it does not appear to have substantial membership among the employees at the Cadillac , Oaks, and Hood Watertown plants. There is, moreover , no collective bargaining history which could be said to support the United's contention that the five plants of the Companies constitute a single appropriate bar- gaining unit . On the contrary , bargaining practice in the past has recognized the individual status of the separate plants.5 While there is some interrelation between the . operations , of some of the plants, it is scarcely of such a nature as to outweigh the foregoing considera- tions. In view of all the evidence adduced at'the hearing, therefore,, we are unable to conclude that the employees of the five plants should be embraced within a single bargaining unit ' at the present time. Accordingly, we find that the unit sought by the United is not appro- priate for the purposes of collective bargaining ' and we shall , there- fore, dismiss the petition of the United. The United , Arrow, Local 21914, and Hood agreed at the hearing that in the event that the Board found that the employees of Hood at Watertown could constitute a separate bargaining unit, such unit should consist of all production and maintenance employees on an hourly or piece -rate basis , including non-supervisory instructors, warehouse and shipping employees , and employees in the Hood retail store, but excluding executives, supervisory employees , watchmen, office employees , and technical advisers . We see no reason why such a unit is not appropriate. We find that all production and maintenance employees on an hourly or piece-rate basis at the Hood Watertown plant, including non-supervisory instructors , warehouse and shipping employees, and employees in the Hood retail store; but excluding executive super- visory employees , watchmen , office employees , and technical advisers, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining and that said unit will insure to employees of Hood 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 According to Hood's pay roll as of October 5 , 1939, there were 3,380 employees in the appropriate unit. A representative of Local 21914 testified that 1,080 of these employees had designated Local 21914 as their bargaining representative . Local 21914 , the United, See Matter of Chrysler Corporation and United Automobile Workers of America, Local 371, affiliated with C. I. 0., 13 N . L. R. B. 1303. 492 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Arrow, and Hood agreed that an election by secret ballot is necessary to resolve the question concerning representation . We will direct that an election by secret ballot be held. Shortly . after the close of the hearing Hood laid off approximately 400 employees at the Watertown plant. For this reason Local 21914, 'United, and ' Hood agreed that a pay roll nearest the date of the commencement of the hearing be used as a basis for determining ,,eligibility to participate in the election . Arrow did not state its posi- tion on the matter -of eligibility of employees to vote. We will direct that the employees eligible to vote . in the election shall be those em- ployees in the appropriate unit who were employed during the pay- roll period immediately preceding December 1, 1939, the date of the ,commencement of the hearing , including employees who have been hired on a permanent basis between that date and the date of the Direction of Election herein, employees who did not work during such pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation , and em- ployees who were then temporarily laid off , but excluding those who have since December 1, 1939, quit or been discharged foiâ€¢ cause. Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case , the Board makes the following : CoNcLusioNs OF LAW 1. A question affecting commerce has arisen concerning the repre- sentation of employees of Hood Rubber Company, Inc., Watertown,. :Massachusetts, within the meaning of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act. 2. All production and maintenance employees on an. hourly or -piece-rate basis at the Hood Watertown plant, including non- â€¢supervisory instructors, warehouse and shipping employees, and em- ployees in the Hood retail store, excluding executive supervisory employees, watchmen, office employees, and technical advisers, consti- tute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining, within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act. 3. No question concerning the representation of employees of B. F. Goodrich Company, Akron, Ohio, in a unit appropriate for the pur- poses of collective bargaining has arisen, within the meaning of Section 9 (c) 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 HOOD RUBBER C'OMPA1Y, INC. 493 Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 2, as amended, it is hereby DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation authorized by the Board to ascertain representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Hood Rubber Company, Inc., Watertown, Massachusetts, 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 First Region, acting in this matter as agent for the National Labor Rela- tions Board and subject to Article III, Section 9, of said Rules and Regulations, among all production and maintenance employees on an hourly or piece-rate basis at the Watertown plant, who were employed during the pay-roll period immediately preceding Decem- ber 1, 1939, the date of the commencement of the hearing, including non-supervisory instructors, warehouse and shipping employees, employees in the Hood retail store, employees who have been hired on the permanent basis between that date and the date of this Direction, employees who did not work during such pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation, and employees who were then temporarily laid off, but excluding executive supervisory employees, watchmen, office' employees, technical advisers, and employees who have since December 1, 1939, quit or been discharged for cause, to determine whether they desire to be represented by Rubber Workers .-Federal Labor Union No. 21914, affiliated with the American Fed- eration of Labor, by United Rubber Workers of America, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, or by Arrow Rubber -Protective Association, for the purposes of collective bargaining, or by none of.said organizations. AND rr is oiw m that the petition for investigation and certifica- tion filed by United Rubber Workers of America be, and it hereby is, dismissed. MR. EDWIN S. SMITH, dissenting : I dissent from the decision that an, employer-wide bargaining unit is inappropriate in this case. While the facts in this case differ in some respects from those in the United States Rubber Conzpanzycases,' decided this day, the basic question presented is the same. The con- siderations which I set forth in my dissenting opinion in those cases are largely applicable here and need not be restated. It is true that in this case the United has not in express terms sought to bargain with the Companies on the basis of an employer- wide unit, as was the case in the United States Rubber Company cases. Matter of United States Rubber Company (Providence plant) and Rubber Workers Federal Labor Union Local # 22014, affiliated with, the American Federation of Labor, 20 N. L. R. B. 473. 494 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Nevertheless, bargaining between the United and Goodrich covered the bulk of the workers employed at all the rubber plants of the Com- panies. Over 60 per cent of the workers at the rubber plants of the Companies are employed at the 6 Akron plants and their terms and conditions of employment were governed by a single exclusive bar- gaining contract of the United. The workers at the Los Angeles plant were also covered by an exclusive bargaining contract of the United. Thus well over a majority of the employees at the Com- panies' rubber plants worked under terms and conditions fixed by United contracts. The United claims membership of a majority of the workers at all the rubber plants and, except for the Hood Watertown plant, no- other labor organization has organized the production workers at any of the rubber plants. No other labor organization has estab- lished contractual relations with the Companies respecting production workers. Although there is geographical separation of plants and decentrali- zation of management, combination of all the rubber plants into a single bargaining unit is not impracticable. It seems plain that , under the circumstances of this case, bargaining on the basis of a single unit embracing all the rubber plants of the Companies is essential to in- sure to the employees at such plants equal bargaining strength with the Companies and the full benefits of collective bargaining. I would hold that the workers at all the rubber plants of the Com- panies, except the pattern makers employed at the 6 Akron plants at which Pattern Makers League of North America has contracts, constitute 'a single appropriate bargaining unit and would direct an election to determine their desires as to representation.