Plymouth Shoe Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 25, 1970

185 N.L.R.B. 732 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

732 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Plymouth Shoe Companyand United Shoe Workers
of America , AFL-CIO-CLC, Petitioner . Case 1-
RC-10,668
September 25, 1970
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING , BROWN , AND JENKINS
Pursuant to a Stipulation for Certification upon
Consent Election , an election by secret ballot was
conducted under the direction and supervision of
the Regional Director for Region 1 on September
4, 1969, among the employees in the stipulated unit
described below . After the election , the parties were
furnished with a tally of ballots which showed that
of approximately 451 eligible voters , 370 cast ballots,
of which 138 were for the United Shoe Workers
of America , AFL-CIO-CLC, the Petitioner, 225 votes
for the Plymouth Shoe Company Employees ' Benefit
Association , the Intervenor, 5 votes were cast against
the participating labor organizations , and 2 ballots
were challenged . Thereafter, the Petitioner filed timely
objections to conduct affecting the results of the elec-
tion.
In accordance with the National Labor Relations
Board' Rules and Regulations, the Regional Director
conducted an investigation, and thereafter, on October
31, 1969, issued and duly served upon the parties
his Report on Objections, in which he recommended
that the objections be overruled, and that the Interve-
nor be certified as the collective-bargaining representa-
tive of the employees in the unit found appropriate
below. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed exceptions to
the Regional Director's Report and the Employer
filed a brief in support of the Regional Director's
Report.
On April 15, 1970, the National Labor Relations
Board issued a Decision, Order, and Direction of
Second Election' in the above-entitled proceeding in
which the Board found merit in certain of the Petition-
er's objections and set aside the above election and
directed that a second election be held. The following
unit, stipulated to by the parties, was found by the
Board to constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes
of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section
9(b) of the Act.
Pursuant to the provisions of Sec 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended, the Board has delegated its powers in connection
with this case to a three -member panel.
' 182 NLRB No I
All employees engaged in the manufacture of
shoes directly, including maintenance crew and
mechanics, watchmen, porters, shipping room
employees and stock clerks, but excluding all
supervisors, office and administrative employees,
salesmen and professional employees.
By letter, dated May 27, 1970, the Employer moved
that the instant petition be dismissed contending,
inter alia, that it is no longer engaged in shoe manufac-
turing and that the unit in which the Board has
directed the second election is no longer in existence.
On June 15, 1970, the Board issued a Notice to
Show Cause to the parties, attaching a copy of the
Employer's letter dated May 27, 1970, as to why
the representation petition filed by the Petitioner
should not be dismissed because the unit involved
no longer exists.
In its response the Employer reiterated the position
set forth in its letter of May 27, 1970, pointing
out: (1) the Plymouth Shoe Company has discontinued
the manufacture of man's footwear and for economic
reasons went out of business during the fall of 1969;
(2) Plymouth Shoe Company changed its name to
Middleboro Manufacturing Corporation on or about
December 3, 1969, and this Corporation liquidated
the assets and terminated the operations of the shoe
operation and disposed of all its manufacturing equip-
ment; (3) the last production employee was terminated
on or about March 13, 1970, and the last maintenance
employees were terminated shortly thereafter; (4) on
or about December 1969, the Kayser-Roth Corpora-
tion, engaged in various enterprises in the apparel
industry, organized a new corporation, a wholly-
owned subsidiary named Plymouth Shoe Company,
Inc., whose sole business is to purchase completely
manufactured footwear from European or other
sources and to sell and distribute such footwear in
the United States; and (5) the Plymouth Shoe Compa-
ny, Inc. has no production employees, and other
than salesmen and office workers its workforce consists
of approximately 15 general warehousemen and one
elevator operator. The supervisor of the general ware-
house operation had previously worked for another
employer and did not supervise any of the production
employees of the former Plymouth Shoe Company.
In its response the Petitioner did not controvert
the factual allegations of the Employer and pointed
out that the employees now employed as warehouse-
men are the same employees who were formerly
included in the unit heretofore found appropriate
as "shipping room and stock clerks" and the duties
performed by the current complement of warehouse
employees is of the same nature as those formerly
performed by shipping room employees and stock
clerks. In addition, the Petitioner alleged that during
185 NLRB No. 105
PLYMOUTH SHOE COMPANY
the time period relevant to the pendency of the instant
petition for certification, one aspect of the Employer's
business involved the importation of shoes for domes-
tic redistribution. The Petitioner argues that the
Employer, therefore, has not discontinued its opera-
tion and that merely a prior partial function of the
Employer now has become its sole function and that
a directed second election would be a meaningful
exercise of employee rights in accordance with the
intent of the National Labor Relations Act. For the
reasons discussed below, we find the Petitioner's con-
tentions are not sufficient to warrant the direction
of a second election.
At the time the Petitioner filed its petition on
June 24, 1969, we note that it requested an election
in a unit of approximately 430 production and mainte-
nance employees directly employed by the Plymouth
Shoe Company in the manufacture of shoes, including
certain specified supportive employees. We also find
significant that on the date of the election, September
4, 1969, there were approximately 451 eligible voters.
As described above, the unit found appropriate by
the Board was for an overall unit of "all employees
engaged in the manufacture of shoes directly," includ-
ing employees such as "shipping room employees
and stock clerks" who were adjunct to the Employer's
primary manufacturing operation. It is uncontroverted
that the Employer is no longer engaged in the manu-
facturing of shoes and no longer employs any employ-
ees in any of the numerous job classifications involved
in the manufacture of shoes or in the maintenance
of shoe manufacturing equipment. The current com-
plement of 16 employees is less that 4 percent of
the workforce at the time of the petition and the
election, and the two job classifications currently being
733
performed are jobs not directly related to shoe manu-
facturing and are only a fraction of the original
job classifications. Although the Employer appears
to have been engaged previously in warehousing and
selling of imported shoes for domestic consumption,
it was clearly not the major function of its operation
and the jobs involved were only incidentally part
of the overall unit. Thus, the sole function of the
new operation is warehousing and shipping of outside
manufacturers' shoes, whereas the operation at' the
time the petition was filed and election held was
primarily a shoe manufacturing operation.
In the circumstances, we are persuaded that the
changed nature and character of the current opera-
tions, the drastic diminution of the workforce and
the radical change in the type and number of job
classifications have so altered the scope of the original
unit petitioned for and found appropriate by the
Board that the original unit is no longer in existence.
In our opinion the original petition no longer provides
the basis for an election and we feel that no useful
purpose will be served by proceeding with a present
determination of representatives. Accordingly, we
shall dismiss the petition, without prejudice to the
Petitioner's filing a new petition.'
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the petition herein be,
and it hereby is, dismissed.
' We find that the Petitioner's Response to the Notice to Show Cause
has not raised material and substantial issues sufficient to warrant holding
of a hearing and deny its request for a hearing