Alpena Garment Company, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 19, 1939

13 N.L.R.B. 720 (N.L.R.B. 1939)

In the Matter of ALPENA GARMENT COMPANY, INC. and INTERNATIONAL
LADIES GARMENT WORKERS UNION
Case No. R-1366.-Decided July 19,1939
Ladies Dress Manufacturing Industry-Investigation of Representatives:
controversy concerning representation of employees : refusal of employer to
recognize ' petitioning union as the representative of its employees-Unit Appro-
priate for Collective Bargaining : production employees, including shipping- and
truck-department employees , but excluding office and sales employees , watch-
men, and supervisory employees ; employer unit ; five plants located in four
towns, similarity of work at all plants , dependence of all plants upon main plant,
centralization of management-Representatives : proof of choice : elimination
of disagreement between company and sole union involved to insure satisfactory
negotiations requires an election-Election Ordered
Mr. Earl R. Cross, for the Board.
Mr. Erwin Feldman, of New York City, and Mr. Carl R. Henry,
of Alpena, Mich., for the Company.
Mr. Samuel B. Keene, of Detroit, Mich., and Mr. Elias Lieberman
and Mr. Nathaniel H. Janes, of New York City, for the Union.
Miss Fannie dl. Boyls, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On March 15, 1939, International Ladies Garment Workers Union,
herein called the Union, filed with the Regional Director for the
Seventh Region (Detroit, Michigan) a petition alleging that a ques-
tion affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation
of employees of Alpena Garment Company, Inc.,' Alpena, Michigali,
herein called the Company, and requesting an investigation and
certification of representatives pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the
National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act.
On March 25, 1939, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called
the Board, acting pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the Act and Article
III, Section 3, of National Labor Relations Board-Rules and Regu-
1 Incorrectly designated Alpena Garment Company in the petition.
13 N. L. R. B., No. 80.
720
ALPENA GARMENT COMPANY, INCORPORATED 721
lations-Series 1, as amended, ordered an investigation and author-
ized the Regional Director to conduct it and to provide for an
appropriate hearing upon due notice.
On April 5, 1939, the Regional Director issued a notice of hearing,
copies of which were duly served upon the Company and upon the
Union. Pursuant to the notice, a hearing was held on April 20, 21,
and 22, 1939, at Alpena, Michigan, before E. G. Smith, the Trial
Examiner duly designated by the Board. The Board, the Company,
and the Union were represented by counsel and participated in the
hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-exam-
ine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues was
afforded all parties. At the conclusion of the hearing counsel for
the Board moved to amend the pleadings to conform with the proof.
The motion was granted. During the course of the hearing the
Trial Examiner made rulings on other motions and on objections
to the admission of evidence. The Board has reviewed the rulings
of the Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudicial errors were com-
mitted. The rulings are hereby affirmed.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before the Board on June 1,
1939, in Washington, D. C., for the purpose of oral argument. The
Company and the Union appeared by counsel and participated in
the argument.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. TIIE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Alpena Garment Company, Inc., is a Michigan corporation engaged
in the manufacture and sale of women's house dresses and wash
frocks which retail for prices between 39 cents and $1.98. It operates
two plants in Alpena, Michigan, designated as the Chisholm Street
and River Street plants, and one plant each in Rogers City, Onaway,
and Cheboygan, Michigan, located respectively 40, 60, and 100 miles
from Alpena. All plants except the one in Cheyboygan are owned
by the Company. The Cheyboygan plant has been leased by the
Company from year to year for 10 or 12 years. The Company also
maintains a warehouse in Alpena, a sales office in Chicago, Illinois,
and an office in New York City at which both purchases and sales
are made.
All cotton fabric, which constitutes from 90 to 95 per cent of the
materials used by the Company, comes from outside the State of
AEchigan. For the fiscal year July 1, 1937, to June 30, 1938, the
Company purchased cotton fabric valued at approximately $1,563,-
722 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
000. During that year it sold and transported outside the State of
Michigan garments valued at approximately $2,475,426, and sold
within the State of Michigan garments valued at approximately
$130,283. The volume of goods purchased and sold outside the State
of Michigan subsequent to June 30, 1938, has continued in substan-
tially the same proportion set forth above.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Ladies Garment Workers Union is an unafliliatMd
labor organization admitting to membership all employees engaged
in the production of women's and children's garments, including
shipping- and truck-department employees, but excluding office and
sales employees, watchmen, and supervisory employees.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
On February 11, 1939, following the termination of a sit-down
strike by employees of the Company at Alpena, the Union commenced
organizing employees of the Alpena plants. On February 17 union
representatives met with Martin J. Lingel, vice president, and Van
Epps, superintendent of the Company's plants, to discuss the Union
and working conditions. Lingel and Van Epps informed them that
no one in Alpena at that time was authorized to confer and answer
inquiries on behalf of the Company; that Frank Coll, president, and
Jerry Randall, chairman of the board of directors of the Company,
the only persons so authorized, were out of the city.
During the early part of March 1939, the Union commenced organ-
izing the employees of the Onaway, Rogers City, and Cheboygan
plants. On or about March 9 Abraham Plotkin, general organizer
for the Union, requested Erwin Feldman, attorney for the Company,
to arrange a conference between officials of the Company and union
representatives. Feldman, who was then planning a trip with , sev-
eral officers of the Company, promised to discuss the matter with
them and telegraph Plotkin concerning the results of the discussion.
Plotkin never received the promised telegram.
On March 18 the Union wrote the Company, requesting a meeting
for the purpose of collective bargaining. On March 21, Frank Coll,
president of the Company, replied, declining to meet with the union
representatives for the reason that he did not consider them "as
truly representative" of the employees in any of the Company's
plants.
We find that a question has arisen concerning representation of
employees of the Company.
ALPENA GARMENT COMPANY, INCORPORATED 723
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
UPON COMMERCE
We find that the question concerning representation which has
arisen, occurring in connection with the operations of the Company
described in Section I above, has a close, intimate , and substantial
relation to trade, traffic , and commerce among the several States and
tends to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce
and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The Union contends that the production employees of the Coin-
pany, including shipping- and truck-department employees, but ex-
cluding office and sales employees , watchmen , and supervisory
employees , at its plants in Alpena , Rogers City , Onaway, and Cheboy-
gan, Michigan , constitute a single unit appropriate for the purposes
of collective bargaining . The Company introduced no evidence to
rebut this contention but did not agree that such unit is appropriate.
There is no evidence in the record indicating that any union had
ever organized employees of the Company prior to the advent of the
Union in the spring of 1939. We therefore have no history of col-
lective bargaining at the plants to aid us in determining the
appropriate unit.'
The Company 's main plant , its Chisholm Street plant in Alpena,
is about five times as large as any of the other plants. At that plant
there is maintained a central bookkeeping department , where all pay
rolls are compiled and records of merchandise bought and sold are
kept. Materials sewed by all the plants are cut at the Chisholm
Street plant . Garments made at the Rogers City and River Street
plants are pressed at the Chisholm Street plant . The other plants
do their own pressing . Any one of the plants except the Chisholm
Street plant could be closed without substantially affecting the
operation of the others.
Most of the garments manufactured at Alpena retail for 98 cents
and higher , whereas about 90 per cent of the garments manufactured
at Rogers City, Onaway , and Cheboygan retail for not more than 59
cents. However , the higher priced garments can be, and occasionally
are, shifted from Alpena to the other plants for manufacture. It is
the contention of the Union that the Company has in several in-
stances thus shifted its operations in order to punish emp l oyees of
one plant for requesting an increase in piece-work rates.
A general superintendent is in charge of the production at all the
plants. He supervises the local plant managers and is consulted by
them relative to the employment and lay-off of employees. About
724 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
two-thirds of the employees are paid on a piece-work basis. Piece-
work rates are determined as the result of conferences between the
New York, Chicago, and Alpena offices. The local plant managers fix
the wages to be paid other employees. As pointed out in Section III
above, it is the contention of the Company that none of its repre-
sentatives except its president and the chairman of its board of
directors are authorized to represent the Company in bargaining
with the Union.
The integrated nature of the business of the Company, the sim-
ilarity of the work at the various plants, the dependence of all the
plants upon the main plant, and the centralization of the manage-
ment of the plants convince us the employer-unit basis upon which
the plants have been organized will best effectuate collective bar-
gaining between the Company and its employees.
The Company has objected to the shipping- and truck-department
employees being included within the appropriate unit. No other
union, however, has claimed to represent them, and we see no reason
why they may not be included within the appropriate unit.
We find that the production employees of the Company, including
shipping- and truck-department employees, but excluding office and
sales employees, watchmen, and supervisory employees, at its plants
in Alpena, Rogers City, Onaway, and Cheboygan, Michigan, consti-
tute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining and
that said unit will insure to employees of the Company the full benefit
of their right to self-organization and to collective bargaining and
will otherwise effectuate the policies of the Act.
VI. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
Applications for membership in the Union checked against a pay-
roll list of employees working for the Company between March 1 and
March 31, 1939, show that at the date of the hearing 671 of the 975
employees within the appropriate unit were members of the Union.
A handwriting expert, who checked the signatures on the applications
for membership against signatures on canceled pay checks of the
employees, testified that all except four of the signatures corresponded.
One of the four employees whose signatures were questioned was shown
to have signed by her mark and the remaining three satisfactorily
explained the variances in their handwriting and testified that they
desired the Union to represent them.
The Union requests, on the basis of the above-stated facts, that the
Board certify it without an election as the exclusive representative of
the employees. The Company, however, contends that the signatures
on the application cards do not represent the free choice of a majority
of its employees. Since our determination of representatives looks to
ALPENA GARMENT COMPANY, INCORPORATED 725
the initiation of collective bargaining between the Company and its
employees, we believe that the bargaining relations which result will
be more satisfactory from the beginning if the doubt and disagreement
of the parties regarding the wishes of the employees is, as far as
possible, eliminated. Such doubt and disagreement can best be elim-
inated by the holding of an election by secret ballot. We shall, accord-
ingly, direct that such an election be held.2
The pay-roll list of March 1 to 31, 1939, against which applica-
tions for membership were checked at the hearing, shows that there
were 975 employees within the appropriate unit on that date. That
number is a representative number of employees working for the
Company during normal periods but the number fluctuates substan-
tially with changing business conditions and sometimes during differ-
ent seasons. At the oral argument before the Board on June 1, 1939,
counsel for the Company stated that the Company then employed
about 1,100 employees. We are therefore of the opinion that the pay
roll immediately preceding the date of the Direction of Election will
most accurately reflect the employment conditions at the Company's
plants at the present time, and we shall adopt that pay roll in deter-
mining the eligibility of employees to vote.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire
record in the case, the Board makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. A question affecting commerce has arisen concerning the repre-
sentation of employees of Alpena Garment Company, Inc., Alpena,
Michigan, within the meaning of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and
(7) of the National Labor Relations Act.
2. The production employees of the Company, including shipping-
and truck-department employees, but excluding office and sales em-
ployees, watchmen, and supervisory employees, at its plants in Alpena,
Rogers City, Onaway, and Cheboygan, Michigan, constitute a single
unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining, within
the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act.
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
2 See Matter of The Cudahy Packing Company and United Packinghouse Workers of
America, Local No. 21, of the Packinghouse Workers Organizing Committee , Affiliated with
the Congress of Industrial Organizations , 13 N. L. R. B. 526; and Matter of Armour
i Company and United Packinghouse Workers, Local Industrial Union No. 13 of Packing-
house Workers Organizing Committee, Affiliated with C. I. 0., 13 N. L. R. B. 567.
157930-39-vol 13-47
726 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Act, and pursuant to Article III, Section 8, of National Labor Rela-
tions Board Rules and Regulations-Series 2, it is hereby
DIRECTED that, as a part of the investigation ordered by the Board
to ascertain representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining
with Alpena Garment Company, Inc., Alpena, Michigan, an election
by secret ballot shall be conducted within fifteen (15) days from the
date of this Direction of Election under the direction and supervi-
sion of the Regional Director for the Seventh Region, acting in this
matter as agent for the National Labor Relations Board, and subject
to Article III, Section 9, of said Rules and Regulations, among all
the production employees, including shipping- anti truck-department
employees, of Alpena Garment Company, Inc., at its plants in Alpena,
Rogers City, Onaway, and Cheboygan, Michigan, whose names ap-
pear on its pay roll immediately preceding the date of this Direc-
tion of Election, including employees who did not work during such
pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation, and employees
who were then or have since been temporarily laid off, but excluding
office and sales employees, watchmen, and supervisory employees, and
employees who have since quit or been discharged for cause, to deter-
mine whether or not they desire to be represented by International
Ladies Garment Workers Union for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining.
MR. EDWIN S. SMITH, dissenting :
For the reasons stated by me in the Arinour d Company case,3
where also the single union involved presented documentary evidence
that it represented a clear majority of the employees in the unit, I
believe that we should here certify the Union rather than delay the
determination of the question concerning representation by holding
an election.
8 See footnote 2, supra.