The Muskin Shoe Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 3, 1940

25 N.L.R.B. 60 (N.L.R.B. 1940)

In the Matter of THE MUSKIN SHOE COMPANY and UNITED SHOE
WORKERS OF AMERICA
Case No. R-1890.-Decided July 3, 19-0
Jurisdiction : shoe manufacturing industry.
Investigation and Certification of Representatives : existence of question : em-'
Dloyer refuses to accord recognition to union and -requests that certification be
obtained ; election necessary.
Unit Appropriate for Collective Bargaining : production and maintenance em-
ployees excluding supervisory and clerical employees.
Lauchheimer and Frank, by Mr. Eli Frank, Jr., of Baltimore, Md.,
for the Company.
Mr. Frank J. Bender and Mr. Anthony Forinachelli, of Baltimore,
Md., and Mr. Leo Goodman, of Washington, D. C., for the Union.
Miss Margaret M. Farmer, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On April 11, 1940, United Shoe Workers of America, herein called
the Union, filed with the Regional Director for the Fifth Region
(Baltimore, Maryland) a petition, and on May 6, 1940, an amended
petition, alleging that a question affecting commerce had arisen con-
cerning the representation of employees of The Muskin Shoe Company,
Baltimore, Maryland, herein called the Company, 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 May 10, 1940, 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, as amended, ordered an investigation and
authorized the Regional Director to conduct it and to provide for an
appropriate hearing upon due notice.
On May 16, 1940, the Regional Director issued a notice of hearing,
copies of which were duly served upon the Company and upon the
Union. Pursuant to' notice a hearing was held on June 14, 1940, in
Baltimore, Maryland, before Herbert O. Eby, the Trial Examiner duly
25 N L R. B, No. 13.
60
THE MUSKIN SHOE COMPANY 61
designated by the Board. The Company was represented-by counsel
and the Union by its representative; both participated in the hearing
and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-
examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues.
During the course of the hearing the Trial Examiner made several
rulings on objections to the admission of evidence. The Board has
reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudi-
cial errors were committed . The rulings are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in the proceedings, the Board makes the
following:
FIN DINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
The Muskin Shoe Company is a Maryland corporation, engaged
in the manufacture and sale of shoes at plants located at Westminster,
Maryland, Millersburg, Pennsylvania, and Baltimore, Maryland. The
instant proceeding is concerned solely with the Baltimore. plant.
Approximately 98 per cent of all raw materials purchased for use at
the Baltimore plant, consisting principally of leather, rubber, and
textile products, are obtained from States other than Maryland. The
total sales from the Baltimore plant approximate $600,000 a year.
Approximately 98 per cent of the products manufactured at the Balti-
more plant are shipped to points in States other than Maryland.
The Company employs at its Baltimore plant in the regular course
of business approximately 340 persons. Its weekly pay roll at that
plant varies between $5,000 and $6,000.
It. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
United Shoe Workers of America is a labor organization affiliated
with the Congress of Industrial Organizations. Its membership
requirements do not appear in the record.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
On or about April 5, 1940, the Union requested the Company to
bargain collectively with it. The Company informed the Union that-
it would enter` into negotiations with the Union when the Union had
produced proof that it represented a majority of the employees of
the Company. At a subsequent conference between the parties and
the Regional Director, held to consider a method of determining the
question of representation, the Company requested that a hearing
before the Board and an election be held.
I
We find that a question has arisen concerning the representation of
employees of the Company.
62 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
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 Company,
described in Section I above, has a close, intimate,, and substantial
relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and
tends to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce
and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
At the hearing the parties stipulated that the appropriate unit
consists of all production and maintenance employees of the Company
at its Baltimore plant, excluding supervisory and clerical employees.
We see no reason for departing from the unit agreed upon. We find
that all production and maintenance employees of the Company at
its Baltimore plant, excluding supervisory and clerical employees,
constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining
and that said unit will insure to employees of the Company 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
At the hearing the Trial Examiner introduced in evidence a written
statement by the Regional Director tending to show that at the time
of the hearing the Union represented a substantial number of the
employees of the Company within the unit herein determined to be
appropriate. We find that the question which has arisen concerning
representation can best be resolved by an election by secret ballot.
At the hearing the parties agreed that employees eligible to vote in
an election should be those who were employed as of May 15, 1940. We
shall direct that those eligible to vote in the election shall be the
employees in the appropriate unit who were employed on May 15,
1940, including employees who did not 'work on that date because
they were ill or on vacation, or were then or have since been tempo-
rarily laid off, but excluding those who have since quit or been
discharged for 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 The Muskin Shoe Company, Baltimore,.
THE MUSKIN SHOE COMPANY 63
Maryland, within the meaning of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and
(7) of the Act.
2. All production and maintenance employees of the Company at its
Baltimore, Mar±land, plant, excluding supervisory and clerical em-
ployees, constitute a unit appropriate for the purpose of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the 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 Relations
Act, and pursuant to Article III, Section 8, of National Labor Rela-
tions 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 The Muskin Shoe Company, Baltimore, Maryland, an election
by secret ballot shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later
than thirty (30) clays from the date of this Direction of Election, under
the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Fifth
Region acting in this matter as agent for the National Labor Relations
Board and subject to Article III, Section 9, of said Rules and Regula-
tions, among all production and maintenance employees of The Muskin
Shoe Company, Baltimore, Maryland, who were employed by it on
May 15, 1940, including employees who did not work upon that date
because they were ill or on vacation, or who were then or have since
been temporarily laid off, but excluding supervisory and clerical
employees and employees who have since quit or been discharged for
cause, to determine whether or not they desire to be represented by
United Shoe Workers of America, affiliated with the Congress of
Industrial Organizations, for the purposes of collective bargaining.
MR. EDWIN S. SMITH took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Direction of Election.