Manhattan Rubber Manufactruring Division Of Raybestos-manhattan, Inc. And United Rubber Workers Of America, Affiliated With Congress Of Industrial Organizations, 398 (1944)

In the Matter of MANHATTAN RUBBER MANUFACTrURING DIVISION OF RAYBESTOS-MANHATTAN, INC. and UNITED RUBBER WORKERS OF AMERICA, AFFILIATED WITH CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS Case No. 4-R-1342.-Decided May 9, 1944 Bailey and Schenck of Newark, N. J., by Mr. George B. Bailey, for the Company.

Mr. Samuel L. Rothbard, of Newark, N. J., for the C. I. O.

Mr. Irving L. Werksman, of Passaic, N. J., for the Independent.

Mr. Stanley Lentz, of Philadelphia, Pa., and Mr. John Wisnew, of Paterson, N. J., for the I. A. M.

Messrs. Frank Truatt and John McEntee, of Clifton, N. J., for the F. L. U.

Mr. William C. Baisinger, Jr., of counsel to the Board.

DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon petition duly filed by United Rubber Workers of America, affiliated with Congress of Industrial Organizations, herein called the C. I. 0., alleging that a question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation of employees of Manhattan Rubber Manufacturing Division of Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc.,1 Passaic, New Jersey, herein called the Company, the National Labor Relations Board provided for an appropriate hearing upon due notice before Eugene M. Purver, Trial Examiner. Said hearing was held at Passaic, New Jersey, on March 6, 1944, and on March 20 and 21, 1944. The Company, the C. I. O., Manhattan Rubber Workers Independent Union, herein called the Independent, International Association of Machinists, A. F. of L., herein called the I. A. M., and Federal Labor Union, 1 At the hearing the Trial Examiner, without objection, corrected the name of the Company to read as set forth above.

398 399 Local 23132, A. F. of L., herein called the F. L. U., appeared 2 and participated. All parties were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, to introduce evidence bearing upon the issues, and to file briefs with the Board. The Trial Examiner's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Subsequent to the hearing the C. I. O. filed with the Board a petition requesting that, in the event the Board finds that it has not made a sufficient showing of representation to raise a question concerning representation among the employees within the unit it alleges to be appropriate, the record be reopened for the purpose of permitting it to submit additional evidence of its showing. The Company interposed objections to the granting of the petition. In view of our findings in Section III, infra, we find it unnecessary to rule on the C. I. O.'s petition. Also subsequent to the hearing the F. L. U. submitted to the Board a number of authorization cards allegedly signed by employees of the Company and requested that the Board consider them as evidence of its interest in this proceeding.

In view of the position asserted by the F. L. U. at the hearing,3 we shall accept the cards as evidence of its interest in the instant case.

FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY Manhattan Rubber Manufacturing Division of Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc., a New Jersey corporation, has its main office at Passaic,

New Jersey, and operates plants at Passaic and Whippany, New Jersey, at which it is engaged in the manufacture and sale of mechanical rubber products. Over 90 percent of the raw materials, consisting chiefly of crude, synthetic, reclaimed, and used rubber, purchased by the Company is shipped to its plants from points outside the State of New Jersey. Annually, the Company manufactures over $25,000,000 worth of finished products, of which approximately 80 percent is shipped from the Company's Passaic and Whippany plants to points outside the State of New Jersey.

The Company admits and we find that at its Passaic and Whippany plants it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.

SOn March 20, 1944, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, A. F. of L. appeared at the hearing and moved to intervene.

The Trial Examiner reserved ruling upon the motion until the hearing reconvened on March 21, 1944, at which time he denied the application since the Teamsters was unable to submit any evidence to substantiate its claim of interest.

I The F. L. U. stated at the hearing that its evidence of representation of the Company's employees was unavailable and it requested time within which to produce such evidence.

2. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED United Rubber Workers of America is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, admitting to membership employees of the Company.

   Manhattan Rubber Workers Independent Union is an unaffiliated labor organization, admitting to membership employees of the Company.

   International Association of Machinists is a labor organization affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, admitting to membership employees of the Company.

   Federal Labor Union, Local 23132, is a labor organization affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, admitting to membership employees of the Company.

3. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION The Company refuses to recognize the C. I. O. as the exclusive bargaining representative of those of its employees within a unit alleged to be appropriate by the C. I. 0. The Company and the Independent contend that their current collective bargaining contract constitutes a bar to this proceeding.

   Pursuant to the results of consent elections held among two separate groups of employees in the Company's Passaic plant, the Company on May 11, 1943, entered into a collective bargaining contract with the Independent, and on May 22, 1943, executed a similar bargaining agreement with the I. A. M. These contracts collectively cover all production and maintenance employees of the Company's Passaic plant, exclusive of supervisory and clerical employees and guards.

   As hereinafter noted in Section IV, the employees covered by the I. A....