Hans Rees' Sons

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 13, 1945

61 N.L.R.B. 541 (N.L.R.B. 1945)

In the Matter of HANS REES' SONS and INTERNATIONAL FtTR AND
LEATHER WORKERS UNION, CIO, AND LOCAL No. 385
Case No. 5-R-1805.-Decided April 13, 1945
Messrs. Kingsland Van Winkle and Compton Rees, of Asheville,
N. C., for the Company.
Messrs. Hardy Scott, H. G. Sparks , L. Dale Hall, and D. G. Gar-
land, of Asheville , N. C., and Mr. Abe Feinglass , of Chicago , Ill., for
the CIO.
Messrs. George Pennell, James F. Barrett , and A. E. Brown, of
Asheville, N . C., for the AFL.
Miss Ruth Rusch , of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a petition duly filed by International Fur and Leather Work-
ers Union, CIO, and Local No. 385, herein called the CIO, alleging
that a question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the represen-
tation of employees of Hans Rees' Sons, Asheville, North Carolina,
herein called the Company, the National Labor Relations Board pro-
vided for an appropriate hearing upon due notice before Sidney J.
Barban, Trial Examiner. Said hearing was held at Asheville, North
Carolina, on March 12, 1945. The Company, the CIO, and United
Leather Workers International Union, Local No. 56, A. F. of L., here-
in called the AFL, appeared and participated.' All parties were af-
forded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine
witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues. At the
hearing the AFL moved to dismiss the CIO's petition on the ground
that there is a subsisting contract between the Company and the AFL
which is a bar to a present determination of representatives. The
Trial Examiner reserved ruling on the AFL's motion for the Board's
determination. For reasons stated in Section III, infra, the motion
1 At the beginning of the hearing , the Trial Examiner granted a motion to intervene
made by the AFL.
61 N. L. R B., No. 75.
639678-45-vol 61-36 541
542 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
is hereby denied. The Trial Examiner's rulings made at the hearing
are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. All parties
were afforded an opportunity to file briefs with the Board.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF TIIE COMPANY
The Company is a New York corporation with its principal place of
business located in Asheville, North Carolina, where it is engaged in
the manufacture of leather for belting, mechanical and, packing
leather, and other leathers. During the past 6 months, the Company
purchased raw materials amounting to approximately $500,000 in
value, of which 95 percent came from sources outside the State of North
Carolina. In the same period, the Company sold finished products
amounting to more than $1,000,000 in value, of which approximately
95 percent was shipped to points outside the State of North Carolina.
The Company admits that it is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
'II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
International Fur and Leather Workers Union, Local No. 385, is a
labor organization affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organiza-
tions, admitting to membership employees of the Company.
United Leather Workers International Union, Local No. 56, is a
labor organization affiliated with the American Federation of Labor,
admitting to membership employees of the Company.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
On January 10, 1945, the Company received a letter from the CIO in
which the CIO requested recognition as the bargaining representative
of the Company's production and maintenance employees. The Com-
pany refused to grant such recognition, stating that it already had a
contract with the AFL. The CIO filed its petition herein on January
23, 1945.
The Company and the AFL have had a series of bargaining contracts
since 1941, The last agreement was executed on February 10, 1944, to
continue in operation for a period of 1 year, and thereafter to be re-
newed from year to year in the absence of notice to terminate served
by either party upon the other at least 30 days prior to the anniversary
date of the contract, Inasmuch as the CIO's request for recognition
was timely, the contract does not constitute a bar to a present determi-
nation of representatives.'
' See National Labor Relations Board Ninth Annual Report , pp 25, 26.
HANS REES' SONS 543
A statement of a Field Examiner, introduced into evidence at the
hearing, indicates that the CIO represents a substantial number of
employees in the unit hereinafter found appropriate.3
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning
the representation of employees of the Company, within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The CIO and the AFL agree in general that the appropriate unit
should be comprised of the Company's production and maintenance
employees, including watchmen. The only dispute between the unions
concerns the chemist and the office clerical employees both of whom
the CIO would exclude and the AFL would include. The Company
stated no position with respect to the appropriateness of the unit.
Chemist: The Company employs a chemist who works in the chemi-
cal laboratory which is adjacent to the Company's offices. He tests the
leather to insure its passing the analysis standard set by the Govern-
ment, since most of the Company's products are purchased by the
Government. The chemist is a salaried employee, does not punch a
time clock, and has an hour for lunch instead of 40 minutes like the
production workers. He was not included in any of the previous
bargaining contracts. In view of these facts, we shall exclude the
chemist from the unit.
Office Clerical Employees: The office clerical employees work in
the Company's offices and perform no clerical functions in the plant.
Like the chemist, they are salaried and have an hour for lunch. They
were not bargained for under the prior agreements. In addition, it
is the usual practice of the Board to exclude office clerical employees
from a unit of production and maintenance workers. We shall exclude
the office clerical employees from the unit.
Watchmen: The Company employs 10 watchmen, who have been
included in the unit covered by the AFL's contracts. They are en-
gaged in the ordinary duties of watchmen; those on duty at night
patrol the plant and guard the gate. They do no janitorial work.
Some of them carry arms when patrolling the fence which encloses
the plant premises; all of them, according to the Company's general
manager, are "deputized by the county to carry firearms." There is
no evidence indicating that these employees have monitorial duties.
7 The Field Examiner reported that the CIO submitted 136 application -for-membership
cards , 126 of which bore the names of persons listed on the Company ' s pay roll of January
24, 1945, which contained the names of 216 employees in the appropriate unit The cards
were dated 3 in November 1944, 48 in December 1944, 79 in January 1945, 3 in February
1945, and 3 undated
The AFL did not present any evidence , but relies upon its contract as proof of its
interest
544 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
They are not militarized . Both the labor organizations would include
the watchmen in the unit ; the Company has no objection to their
inclusion . We shall include them.4
We find, in accordance with the agreement of the parties and our
foregoing conclusions , that all production and maintenance employees
of the Company , including watchmen, but excluding the chemist, office
clerical employees , and all supervisory employees with authority to
hire, promote , discharge , discipline , or otherwise effect changes in the
status of employees, or effectively recommend such action , constitute
a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
We shall direct that the question concerning representation which
has arisen be resolved by an election by secret ballot among the em-
ployees in the appropriate unit who were employed during the pay-roll
period immediately preceding the date of the Direction of Election
herein, subject to the limitations and additions set forth in the
Direction.
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 9, of National Labor Relations
Board Rules and Regulations-Series 3, as amended, it is hereby
DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation to ascertain representa-
tives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Hans Rees' Sons,
Asheville, North Carolina, an election by secret ballot shall be con-
ducted as early as possible , but not later than thirty (30) days from
the date of this Direction, 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,
Sections 10 and 11, of said Rules and Regulations, among the em-
ployees in the unit found appropriate in Section IV, above, who were
employed during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date
of this Direction , including employees who did not work during the
said pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation or temporarily
laid off , and including employees in the armed forces of the United
States who present themselves in person at the polls, but excluding
4 See Matter of Charlottesville Woolen Mills, 59 N. L R B 1160 , Matter of Armour
and Company , 60 N. L R B 393 ; Matter of Ingalls Shtipbuilding Corporation. 59
N. L R B 924.
HANS REES' SONS 545
those employees who have since quit or been discharged for cause and
have not been rehired or reinstated prior to the date of the election, to
determine whether they desire to be represented by International Fur
and Leather Workers Union, CIO , and Local No. 385, or by United
Leather Workers International Union, Local No. 56 , A. F. of L., for
the purposes of collective bargaining , or by neither.
CHAIRMAN MILLIS took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Direction of Election.