Craddock-Terry Shoe Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 26, 1943

48 N.L.R.B. 651 (N.L.R.B. 1943)

In the Matter Of CRADDOCK-TERRY SHOE CORPORATION and UNITED
SHOE WORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL No. 90, AFFILIATED WITH THE
CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS
Case No. R-4251.Decided March 26 , 1943
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISIONi
AND
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
On October 2, 1942, the National Labor Relations Board, herein
called the Board, issued a Decision and Direction of Election in the
above=entitled proceeding.' Pursuant to the Direction of Election,
an election by secret,ballot was conducted on October 22, 1942, under
the direction and supervision of the Acting Regional Director for the
Fifth Region (Baltimore, Maryland). On October 26, 1942, the
Acting Regional Director, acting pursuant to Article III, Section 10,
of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 2,
as amended, issued and duly served upon the parties an Election
Report.
As to the balloting and its results, the Acting Regional Director
reported as follows :
Total on eligibility list----------------------------------- 2; 205
Total ballots cast---------------------------------------- 1,974
Total, ballots challenged---------------------------------- 1
Total blank ballots------------ -------------------------- 9
Total void ballots---------------------------------------- . 3,
Total, valid votes counted--------------------------------- 1,961
Votes cast for United Shoe Workers of America,-Local No. 90
(C. I. a) --- -------- ----------- ----------------------- 699
Votes cast for Boot and Shoe Workers Union, Local 441
(A. F. of L.)--------------------------------- - --------- 1,193.
Votes cast for Neither Union------------------------------ 69
On November 5, 1942, the United Shoe Workers of America,
Local No. 99, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations,
herein called the United, filed an Election Protest, in which it alleged,
,inter alia, (1) that although the contract of the Boot and" Shoe Work-
ers Union, Local 441, herein called the A. F. of L., expired on Septem-
144 N. L.R.B 738.
48 N. L. R. B., No. 82.,
651
652 'DECISIONS OF NATIONAL( LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ber 1, 1942, more than a month prior to the election conducted by the
Board in this case, the Company proceeded thereafter to recognize
the A. F.'of L., as bargaining agent and granted to A. F. of L. rep-
resentatives and members privileges and benefits of .an exclusive bar-
^gaining agency while denying any of'these benefits to,the United;
,(2) on every grievance the Company insisted on the presence of the
A. F. of L. room representative; (3) officers of the A. F. of L. were
permitted to leave their jobs and move about the factory during
working hours, and to post notices on bulletin boards calling meetings;
(4) during this same period, the United was not permitted to post
notices or to engage in any of these activities; and (5) during all of
this time, there was no contract in effect which justified any such
discrimination. On December 30,' 1942, the Regional Director, issued
his Report on Objections to Election in which he reported that, the
objections of the United raised substantial and -material issues with
respect to the conduct of the ballot, and recommended that the Board
direct a hearing on said objections. On January 13, 1943, the A. F.
of L. filed Objections to the Regional Director's Report on Objections
to Election. On January 15, 1943, it appearing that the Objection
set forth in paragraph 4 2 of the Election Protest filed by the United
raised substantial and material issues with respect to the-conduct of the
ballot, the Board ordered a hearing on said objection.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held on January 27, 1943, at
Lynchburg, Virginia, before Thomas S. Wilson, Trial Examiner.
The Board, the Company, the United, and the A. F. of L. appeared,
participated, -and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to
examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence
bearing upon the issues. During the hearing, the United made two
offers of proof with regard to company assistance to the A. F. of L.
in 1937, and in 1942, shortly after the United began organizing the
Company's employees. The Trial Examiner, in view of the definite
limitation of the Board's order with regard to the testimony to be
-adduced at the hearing,3, rejected the offers of proof. The Trial
Examiner's ruling is hereby affirmed. At the hearing,,the United
requested leave to take the deposition of Wayne D. Spettigue, an
organizer for the United, relating to two alleged telephone conversa!
tions that he had with a company official with regard to the Coln-
-pany's alleged favoritism to the A. F. of L. The Trial Examiner
reserved ruling. On February 3, 1943, the United filed with the
Board a written • application for an order directing taking of the
deposition of Spettigue with regard to said telephone conversations.
2 Paragraph 4 contained the allegations heretofore set forth in the text.
The order directed that a hearing beheld on'paragraph 4, only of the-Election Protest.
CRADDOC'K-TERRY SHOD CORPORATION, 653
The application is ' hereby denied. The Trial Examiner's rulings'
made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby
affirmed.
On February 3, 4, and 9, 1943, the Company,' the A. F. of•L,, and
the )United; respectively,, filed' briefs, .and:'oii 1 February. 11, .1943; the
A. F. of L. filed a reply brief, which the Board has considered.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Election Report, the Elec-
tion Protest, the Report on Objections, the Objections to the Regional
Director's Report on Objections, and the record previously made, the
Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
The evidence adduced at the hearing with respect to paragraph 4
of the United's objections may be 'discussed, under -the following
headings : '
. 1. The Company's alleged insistence on the presence of A. F. of L.
room representatives on grievances;
42. The Company's alleged granting of permission to A. F. of L.
officers to leave their jobs and move about the factory and electioneer
while denying these privileges to the United officers; and
3. The Company's alleged granting of permission to the A. F. of L.
to post meeting notices on bulletin boards.
1. The Company's alleged insistence on the presence of A. F. of L.
room representatives on grievances
For 8 years prior to September 1, 1942, the A. F. of L. had been
the bargaining agent for all the production and maintenance em-
ployees' at the Company's three ,plants in and around Lynchburg,
Virginia. On September 1, 1942, the collective bargaining contract
between the Company and the A. F. of L. expired. This contract
provided for representatives in each department of the plants. These
representatives handled grievances with 'the Company for the em-
ployees, and were known as room representatives.
On July 20, 1942, 2 days after the United filed with the Board a
petition for investigation and certification in this proceeding, the
manufacturing director of the Company and its personnel manager
sought advice from the Regional Director. According to the undis-
puted testimony of these company officials, the advice which they re-
ceived was to continue to treat the A. F. of L. as the bargaining agent
during the period the contract was in existence, and thereafter to be
neutral with regard to the organizations. A few days after receiving
this advice the personnel manager met with the supervisory personnel,
including foremen,' at. each 'of the three :plants.:andr'instructe&them
that they were to be neutral with respect to the two organizations.
654 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATION'S BOARD
It is undisputed, however, that the Company gave no orders at this
or any subsequent time regarding the handling of grievances.subse-
quent to the expiration of the contract.
(a) According to the testimony of Nellie Wilkens, a fancy stitcher,
immediately following September 1, 1942, Wilkens attempted to take
up a grievance with Johnson, her instructor, who told her, "I would
rather, you would go to Marian Finch [A. F. of L. room representa-
tive] about it." Wilkens did not see Finch, and the matter was
dropped.. Johnson did not testify.
(b) During the period between September 1, 1942, and October 22,
1942 (the date of the election), Grace V. Burgess, another fancy
stitcher, went to Holt, the superintendent, about a personal matter.
Burgess' testimony was uncontradicted that Holt first asked her
whether Ollie Ballard, the A. F. of L. room representative, was going
to be present; when he learned that the complaint was personal and
did not•concern,her work, he stated that it would not be necessary
for Ballard to be present. ' Upon cross-examination, however, Burgess
admitted that on no occasion since September 1 did she have any
grievance as to which the Company insisted upon Ballard's presence_
Ballard testified, without contradiction, that although she took up a,
grievance following September 1, 1942, with her foreman on behalf
of herself and the employees doing the same work, she was requested
by the girls to represent them and that she informed her foreman
that she was not taking up the grievance' as a room ; epresentative1.
(c) After the expiration of the contract a grievance arose involving
five edgesetters. The grievance, concerned a job available in another
department which the edgesetters believed should be given to one of
them instead of to Bell, a new employee. James R. Bryant, one of
the edgesetters involved, testified that a conference, between Bell, Car-
rington Lawhorn, theA. F. of L. room representative in Bell's depart-
ment, Walter Elder, the A. F. of L. room representative in, Bryant's
department, J. H. Ballard, superintendent of the plant, and Tucker
Thurmond, the Company's personnel director, was held, to which the
edgesetters were not invited. According to Bryant, Elder and Law-
horn were also present at another conference held at noon on the,same
day, to which the five edgesetters were invited. The five edgesetters
objected to the presence of the room representatives, and Bryant par-
ticularly objected to the presence of Elder. Bryant further testified
that over his objection the Company's manufacturing director told
him to go into the conference and that Ballard said, "You know we-
have an agreement with him that, we must accept any of them."
Elder testified that Charley Knowles, one of the edgesetters, asked
him to take up the grievance with the Company on behalf of the
edgesetters, and that Elder spoke to Ballard about it. According 'to
CRADDOCK-TERRY SHOE CORPORATION 655
Elder's testimony, Lawhorn invited him to the morning conference
and explained to him that Bell had requested Lawhorn to represent
him and that he desired Elder's presence. Elder stated that he at-
tended both conferences, although he knew that he could not appear
as a room representative; and because of this, did not participate in
the discussions at either conference but merely sat through the con-
ferences in silence.
Thurmond testified that Lawhorn requested Elder's presence at
the morning conference and that Thurmond therefore invited him;
and that he requested Elder and Lawhorn to be present at the noon
conference solely for the, purpose of confirming his statement to the
edgesetters that the Company had done -everything possible with
regard to the grievance.
(d) About 1 week prior to the hearing, according to the testimony
of Wilkens, the girls in her department desiring a time study on a
certain job, went to Marian Finch and requested her to represent
them. Finch said that she would prefer that one of the group present
the application to the foreman, and when pressed, finally stated that
she could no longer represent them. Finch testified that one of the
operators asked her to apply for the time study and that upon in-
quiry she found. that the time study had already been applied for,
and that it was, therefore, unnecessary to take up the matter.
Upon the foregoing testimony it is apparent that in no instance
did the Company insist, as alleged by the United, upon the presence
of A. F. of L. room representatives, as such, on the grievances set
out above. This also appears to be true with respect to the grievances
of the iedgesetters, since the testimony indicates that Elder was re-
quested by one of the edgesetters to take up the grievance on their
behalf and that, although he was present at both conferences, Elder
did not participate in the discussions.' Neither Lawhorn nor Bell
testified, but it appears from Elder's uncontradicted testimony that
Lawhorn'was requested by Bell to represent him and that Bell also
requested Elder's presence at the morning conference. Although it
is admitted by the Company that Elder and Lawhorn were invited
to the noon conference, Thurmond's testimony, which is uncontra- '
dicted, indicates that his reason for inviting them was to confirm his
statement that the Company had done everything it could to settle
the grievance. It is understandable that Thurmond might desire the
presence of two responsible employee witnesses who could support' his
statements. In any event, it is clear that employees have the right
to request others to represent them on grievances. We conclude, there-
fore, that the allegation that the Company insisted upon the presence
of A. F. of L. room representatives on grievances is not supported by,
the evidence.
656, DECISIONS OF' NATIONAL LABOR RELAT 'IONS1 BOARD
2. The Company's alleged granting of permission to,A. F. of L. officers
to leave their jobs and move about the factory and electioneer while
denying these privileges to the United officers
It appears from'the record that both the A. F. of L. and the United
members, who testified, were instructed by the Company, prior to the
election, not to leave their machines and move about the factory
talking to other employees;
United witnesses testified as follows :
(a) According to the testimony of Wilkens, Essa Hodges, an A. F.
of L. member,.went around in Wilkens' department talking to em-
ployees, collecting dues, and getting cards signed for the A. F. of L.,
and that Collins, the foreman, did not stop Hodges. Hodges ad-
mitted that she did campaign for the A. F. of L. during working
hours, but testified that Collins reprimanded her several times. Wil-
hens further stated that she observed Robert B. Ricketts, president
of the A. F. of L., in her'department practically every day for a period
of a week, talking to the girls, and that Collins did not reprimand
'them. With regard to , her own activity, Wilkens testified that at
lunch time one day she asked an employee to vote for the United,
and that she had handed out United leaflets in front of the plant.
(b) John Albert Wilmer testified that during his lunch hour one
day he distributed a United pamphlet; that the next day his foreman
reprimanded him and that he (Wilmer) thereupon ceased such activity.
(c) Grace M. Diuguid, recording secretary for the A. F. of L.,
according to the testimony of Grace V. Burgess, talked to the girls
practically every day during working hours. Diuguid admitted that
she campaigned for the A. F. of L., but testified that she confined her
activity to lunch time and in the morning before working 'hours.
Burgess admitted that she and two others, of whom Diuguid was one.
were reprimanded by their foreman for alleged electioneering, but
stated that Diuguid nevertheless continued her activity.
Burgess, also testified that she observed Duncan, an employee in the
cutting department, come into her department on one occasion, pass
out A. F. of L. sample ballots, and inform the girls how to vote.
(d) Cecil Nash testified that he saw A. F. of L. officers come into
his department and confer with Ricketts.
A. F. of L. witnesses testified as follows :
(e) According to Coleman W. Floyd's testimony, Thelma Hunter,
a United member, placed inside the door of the lasting room a hand-
ful of mimeographed United leaflets with regard to the resignation
of an employee from the A. F. of L.; and on another occasion a notice
advertising a United meeting was passed down the production line.
Floyd also testified that Pascal, a United member, came into his room
CRADDOCK-TEIRRY SHOE CORPORATION 657
practically every day during working hours, going from machine to
machine campaigning for the United, and that, although Floyd's fore-
man "threw him out twice," Pascal kept coming back.
(f) Ollie Ballard testified that there was a great deal of campaign
ing during working hours by the United. She admitted, however,
that she only got a "whiff" of it because when she would get close
to the girls they would "hush up."
,(g) Burgess and Rachel Coleman, another United member, accord-
ing to Dora Johnson's testimony, asked Johnson during working hours
to join the United, and Coleman solicited her to sign a United card.
(h) 'Ricketts admitted that he visited the stitching room many
times, sometimes remaining there after that department's lunch hour,
and was asked twice to leave by an instructor who told Ricketts that
it was time to go to work. He further admitted that he passed out
literature for the A. F. of L. during working hours. When Boswell,
his foreman, asked whether he had passed out this literature, Ricketts
told him, "Yes I passed it out. I had it wrapped up. in rags and I
was passing it out." Ricketts stated that Boswell told him that no
literature was to be passed out and no electioneering carried on, and
told him not to do it again.
It is evident from the above testimony that the Company did at-
tempt, without apparent discrimination, to prevent electioneering
activity during working hours. It is obvious, however, that both or-
ganizations with equal impunity disregarded the admonitions of
supervisory employees and solicited and electioneered' whenever pos-
sible. In a heated and strenuous campaign some such incidents are
inevitable. On the whole record, it cannot be concluded that the Com-
pany made any distinction between the organizations in the enforce-
ment of rules. We therefore find that the Company did not accord
the A. F. of L. any undue advantage with respect thereto.
3. The Company's alleged granting of permission to the A. F. of L. to
post notices on bulletin boards calling meetings
In accordance with a provision in the bargaining contract, the A. F.
of L. maintained its own bulletin boards in each of the departments
in each of the plants. On these boards, the A. F. of L. posted notices
of its meetings.
(a) Thelma Hunter testified that following the expiration of the
contract on September 1,1942, she told company officials that A. F. of L.
notices were posted and inquired why the Company did not.give the
United the same privileges. She further stated that she understood
that this,was reported to Burton by the United. Finch testified that
her foreman told her that Hunter had reported that A. F. of L. notices
were posted and that he had given instructions to Hodges, the employee
658 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ` BOARD
who posted these notices, to remove them. He also told Finch that
no notices of any kind were to be posted thereafter. Hodges admitted
that Collins, the foreman, told her that she would have to remove the
notices she posted.
(b) Nash testified that he saw several United notices which. were
placed on a post right under the A. F. of L. bulletin board, and that
he saw Boswell remove them.. He also testified that he saw Ricketts
post sample ballots marked for the A. F. of L. on the bulletin boards,
and that he called these to Boswell's attention at, the time Boswell
removed the United notices. Although Nash at first testified that
Boswell replied that the A. F. of L. had permission, he later stated
that Boswell had told him that he wished to be fair, that he was not
taking sides with either organization, and that neither side could put
up literature of campaign during working hours.
(c) Ricketts testified that on a Thursday during the pre-election
campaign, he posted A. F. of L. notices informing the employees of
what the A. F. of L. had done for them, and was called by Thurmond,
on Friday morning and told to remove them. Ricketts told Thurmond
that no meetings were scheduled with,the Company on Fridays and
requested a conference on Monday. At this conference Thurmond
told Ricketts that since the contract had expired, the A. F. of L.
notices would have to be removed. The notices were removed the next
morning.
(d) Floyd testified that no permission was secured from the Com-
pany to post campaign literature on bulletin boards, and that at a meet-
ing the A. F. of L. officers instructed its members not to post anything
on the boards and that if they saw anyone else's literature. posted in
the plants to remove it. Although he saw United notices posted in the
plant, he testified that they were always taken down by someone.
The record discloses that copies of a newspaper clipping, which was
an open letter written by James C. Crist, treasurer of the A. F. of L.,
to the employees, urging them to vote for the A. F. of L., were posted
on the A. F. of L. bulletin boards prior to the election. According to
the testimony of Leonard J. Ford, organizer for the A. F. of L., Crist
did not receive permission from the A. F. of L. to advertise this letter
in any newspaper or post the letter on bulletin boards. He further
stated that the letter was paid for by Crist as an individual and not
as an agent for the A. F. of L. Crist did not testify. '
It appears from the foregoing testimony that not only had neither
organization secured permission from the Company to,post campaign
literature, but in all the incidents above set out, supervisory employees
admonished the employees involved and instructed them to remove the
campaign literature posted. Although we do not approve campaign-
ing within the plant, such as that conducted by both unions in this
case, upon the entire record we are not convinced that the Company
CRADD;OCK-TERRY SHOE CORPORATION 659
accorded the A. F. of L. privileges in this respect which it withheld
from the United.
CONCLUSION
We are of the opinion -and find that the evidence does not support,
the objections,of the United and that, there is nothing in the record
which would warrant us in setting aside the election: In this c'miec-
tion, we note that although the matters complained of occurred prior
to the election and the United was fully aware of them, the United
made no objections to the Regional Office prior to the election, and.
made no request for the postponement of the election. The objections
are therefore overruled, and we shall, accordingly, certify the A. F:'
of L. as the exclusive representative of the employees in the appro-
priate unit. - , ,
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES:.
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, Sections 9 and 10, of National Labor
Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 2, as amended
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that Boot and Shoe Workers Union, Local
441, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, has been desig-
nated and selected by a majority of all production employees of Crad- •
dock-Terry, Corporation, Lynchburg, Virginia, at its three Lynchburg-
plants, excluding all maintenance employees,' j anitors; truck drivers,
elevator operators, and mechanics, as their representative, for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining, and that pursuant to Section .9 (a) of
the Act, Boot and Shoe Workers Union, Local 441, affiliated «ith the
American Federation of Labor, is the exclusive representative,of all
such employees for the purposes of collective bargaining. with respect
to the rates, of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions
of employment.
MR. JOHN: M. HOUSTON took no part in the consideration of the above
Supplemental Decision and Certification of Representatives'. _
521241-43-rol. 48-43 ,