Uniroyal Cites Loss Potential
6-28-67 [handwritten]
Uniroyal, Inc. will suffer a very severe financial loss “forcing a reduction in production” at its Naugatuck Footwear plant if it is not permitted to produce samples of its new designs, a company official said today.
Thomas J. Nelligan, labor relations manager, testified at a Superior Court hearing this morning that failure of the company to have samples to show its customers in August will mean a very large drop in the amount of production needed for the coming year and “in turn less employes.”
Nelligan was the first company representative to testify at a hearing to consider United Rubber Workers Union application for an injunction against the company production.
He said samples for next summer’s market would normally have been produced between April and July of this year.
He said salesmen would have been scheduled to take the samples into the field beginning Aug. 1.
Without the samples, he said the company will have no way of proving “to its buyers that its line is better than its competitors.”
At the opening of the session Tuesday before Judge Leo V. Gaffney, a Local 45 official predicted “there would be bloodshed in Naugatuck if the company is permitted to resume production with non-union members.”
The union filed its application for an injunction against Uniroyal last Thursday after the company began production of samples of new footwear designs. The company agreed at that time to halt production until after a court hearing.
April 18 Agreement
At the core of the controversy is a written agreement signed by both parties April 18, three days before the nation-wide rubber workers strike began.
The agreement provides for orderly shutdown and maintenance of the borough Footwear Plant during the strike.
It includes a clause stipulating that “the company agrees that for the duration of any strike there will be no work performed by non-bargaining unit employes that is normally performed by bargaining unit personnel.”
Local 45 claims Thursday’s production violates that agreement.
While not clearly stating what its defense would be, the company Tuesday indicated it will argue that the April 18 agreement was rendered void when the union allegedly violated a provision intended to insure unimpeded entrance and exit to the plant through certain gates.
(Cont’d on Page 2—UNIROYAL)