International Shoe Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 16, 1951

93 N.L.R.B. 331 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

INTERNATIONAL SHOE COMPANY 331
INTERNATIONAL SHOE COMPANY and UNITED SHOE WORKERS OF AMER-
ICA, CIO , PETITIONER . Case No . 17-RC-912. February 16, 1951
Decision and Direction of Election
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Harry G. Carlson,
hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are
free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.,
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated' its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Murdock and Styles].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. The question concerning representation :
The Petitioner notified the Employer on October 24, 1950, that it
represented a majority of the employees at the Employer's Eldon,
Missouri, plant. On the same day the Petitioner filed its petition
with the Board's Fourteenth Regional Office in St. Louis, Missouri.
The Employer and the Intervenor contend that the Petitioner's claim
was too late because they had entered into an agreement covering the
unit here involved on October 3, 1950. However, this contract had
not been signed by all of the parties until after the Petitioner had
made its claim and filed its petition herein. Under well-established
Board principles, it cannot act as a bar to this proceeding?
The Employer and the Intervenor also contend that if the Board
finds that the October 3, 1950, agreement is not a bar to this proceeding,
the 1949 contract between them remained in effect and therefore is a
bar. The 1949 contract relied on by the Employer and the Intervenor,
provided that if neither party gave notice of termination at least 30
days before the end of the contract, on November 30, 1950, it would be
renewed automatically for another year. Neither party gave such
notice. However, the Petitioner notified the employer of its claim on
October 24, 1950, before the operative or "Mill B" date of the auto-
I At the hearing and in its brief, Boot and Shoe Workers ' Union, AFL, hereinafter called
the Intervenor , moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that the Petitioner had failed
to show a substantial interest The motion is hereby denied . A union's showing of
interest is a matter for administrative determination and not subject to collateral attack.
Arrow Mill Company, 92 NLRB No 166.
The Intervenor 's and the Employer 's other motions to dismiss are also denied for the
reasons set forth below in paragraph numbered 3.
2 Safeway Stores , Inc., 90 NLRB No. 295.
93 NLRB Nd. 46.
332 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
matic renewal clause. The notice and petition therefore prevented
the contract, even if renewed, from becoming a bar.3
The Employer and the Intervenor contend further that the petition
was defective because it was filed with the Board's Fourteenth
Regional Office in St. Louis, Missouri, whereas the plant involved in
this case lies within, the jurisdiction of the Board's Seventeenth
Regional Office in Kansas City, Missouri. The Employer and the
Intervenor argue from this premise that there is no valid
petition before the Board in this case, and moreover, that under the
Board's doctrine set forth in the General Electric X-Ray case,4 the
Petitioner's bare claim did not prevent the renewed contract from be--
coming a bar because it was not followed within 10 days by a valid
petition. Both of these contentions are without merit and are hereby
rejected. The petition, although it may have been faultily filed with
the Fourteenth Regional Office, was corrected when it was transferred
by the General Counsel on December 6, 1950, to the Seventeenth-
Regional Office, thus presenting the Board with a valid petition upon
which the hearing in this case was held.5 The original petition, hav-
ing been filed within 10 days after the Petitioner's claim, protected
that claim. We have previously held that even though an original
petition is faulty, if later perfected, the date of its original filing shalL
govern in applying the General Electric X-Ray doctrine .c
For the foregoing reasons we find that neither the October 3, 1950,
agreement nor the 1949 contract is a bar to a present determination of
representatives.
We find that a question affecting commerce exists concerning the
representation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of
Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The appropriate unit :
In accordance with the agreement of the parties we find that all
production and maintenance employees of the Employer at its Eldon,
Missouri, plant excluding office and clerical employees, guards and
bonded watchmen, and professional employees and supervisors as
defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of
collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
Sangamo Electric Company, 90 NLRB No. 20.
General Electric X-Ray Corp , 67 NLRB 997.
Compare • Chicago Mill and Lumber Company , 69 NLRB 855.
s Gale Products, 77 NLRB 254.