Medway Shoe Manufacturing Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsNov 10, 1953

107 N.L.R.B. 31 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

MEDWAY SHOE MANUFACTURING CORPORATION 31 dictional plan and numerous similar cases issued pursuant thereto. See my dissent in Inter-County Rural Electric Coop- erative Corporation, 106 NLRB 1316. MEDWAY SHOE MANUFACTURING CORPORATION and MARY BENNETT, Petitioner and UNITED SHOE WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO.' Case No. 1-RD-147. November 10, 1953 DECISION AND ORDER Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Robert S. Fuchs, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hear- ing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds: 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the mean- ing of the Act. 2. The labor organization involved claims to represent cer- tain employees of the Employer. 2 3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the representation of employees of the Employer within the mean- ing of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, for the following reasons: The Union contends that the decertification petition should be dismissed as premature. In 1949, the Board certified the Union as bargaining repre- sentative of a production and maintenance unit at the Employer's Medway, Massachusetts, plant. Thereafter the Employer and the Union entered into collective-bargaining agreements, the last of which expired on March 17, 1953. Two weeks before that date, the plant ceased operations at the insistence of a creditors' committee. Since then the Employer has been making efforts to work out an arrangement to obtain enough new capi- tal to resume business. Up to the time of the hearing which was held on July 20, 1953, it was unsuccessful in these endeavors. Whether it will ever succeed in securing additional financial backing is uncertain. 'The petition named Local 30, United Shoe Workers of America, CIO, as the union to be decertified, and the notice of hearing likewise named the Local as the union in interest. Local 30 and its parent Union contend that the proceeding cannot be maintained because the most recent contract named the Union, not Local 30, as the bargaining representative. However, the Union, which is the certified representative, appeared at the hearing, was granted permission to intervene, and participated fully. Under these circumstances, we perceive no prejudice to the Union arising from the designation of Local 30 in the petition and the notice of hearing. We hereby amend the official caption of the case by striking therefrom the reference to Local 30. 2 The Petitioner, an employee of the Employer, asserts that the Union is no longer the bargaining representative of the employees in the agreed appropriate unit. 107 NLRB No. 25 32 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD In the meantime, since about June 23, the Employer has been using 19 of the previous 69 production employees to do some stitching work for another shoe manufacturer. This is a tempo- rary arrangement which is terminable at will. Stitching is only 1 of 7 operations performed in the manufacture of shoes, so that 6 of the Employer's production departments have been en- tirely idle since the early part of March. There is a very serious question whether the Employer will ever resume full-scale operations, At the present time it is not a "going concern." The stitching operation which it is now performing for another manufacturer is only temporary and is not representative of the Employer's full-scale operations. Un- der the circumstances, the Board does not believe that any useful purpose will be served by directing an election at this time. Accordingly, we shall dismiss the petition without preju- dice to the filing of anew petition if and when the Employer re- sumes full-scale operations. 3 [The Board dismissed the petition.] Member Rodgers took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Order. SPride Manufacturing Company, 98 NLRB 445; A. R. Tohl, 97 NLRB 93. HUDSON SHARP MACHINE COMPANY and HUDSON SHARP EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, Petitioner. Case No. 13-RC- 3380. November 10, 1953 DECISION AND ORDER Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent elec- tion, an election by secret ballot was conducted on June 26, 1953, in the above-entitled proceeding, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region of the National Labor Relations Board. Thereafter, a tally of ballots was furnished to the parties, which showed that of 213 valid ballots cast, 130 were for the Hudson Sharp Employees Association, herein called the Petitioner, 80 for Local 1289, International Association of Machinists, AFL, herein called the Intervenor, and 3 for neither union. On June 29, 1953, the Intervenor filed objections to the election. After investigation of the aforesaid objections, the Acting Regional Director issued his report on objections on August 31, 1953. In his report, the Acting Regional Director found that certain conduct of the Employer interfered with the employees' free choice in the election, and recommended that the election be set aside. On September 8, 1953, the Employer filed exceptions to the report. The Board has carefully consid- 107 NLRB No. 29.