American Twine and Fabric Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 23, 1946

70 N.L.R.B. 283 (N.L.R.B. 1946)

In the Matter of AMERICAN TWINE AND FABRIC CORPORATION,
EMPLOYER and TEXTILE WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA (CIO),
PETITIONER
Case No. 1-R-3111.-Decided August 23,1946
Hughes & Burns, by Mr. Stanley M. Burns,-of Dover, N. H., for the
Employer.
Messrs. J. Harold Daoust and Frank L. Diehard, of Nashua, N. H.,
for the Petitioner.
Mr. Emil C. Farkas, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND -
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at Dover,
New Hampshire, on June 28, 1946, before John W. Coddaire, Jr.,
Trial Examiner. The Trial Examiner's rulings made at the hearing
are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations
Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
American Twine and Fabric Corporation, a New Hampshire cor-
poration, maintaining its offices at Portsmouth, New Hampshire, is
engaged in the manufacture of twine and fabrics at its only plant
located in Salmon Falls, New Hampshire. The principal raw ma-
terial used by the Employer is paper, which is used in the manu-
facture of seat covers and other paper fabric products. During the
year 1945, in excess of 50 percent of the raw materials used by the
Employer was shipped to it from points outside the State of New
Hampshire. During the same period, manufactured products sold by
the Employer exceeded $100,000 in value, more than 50 percent of
which was shipped to points outside the State of New Hampshire.
The Employer admits and we find that it is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
70 N. L. B. B., No. 29.
283
284 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
H. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Petitioner is a labor organization affiliated with Congress of
Industrial Organizations claiming to represent employees of the
Employer."
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Employer refuses to recognize the Petitioner as the exclusive
bargaining representative of employees of the Employer until the
Petitioner has been certified by the Board in an appropriate unit.
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning
the representation of employees of the Employer, within the mean-
ing of Section 9 (c) of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The Petitioner seeks a unit of all production and maintenance em-
ployees, excluding office and clerical employees, executives, the plant
manager, the assistant to the plant manager, the machinist, foreman,
and any other supervisory personnel. Contrary to the position of the
petitioner, the Employer asserts that mill maintenance employees
should be excluded from the unit because the nature of their work and
the hours of their employment allegedly differ substantially from those
of the regular production-workers. Also in opposition to the desires
of the Petitioner, the Employer contends that two employees in the
machine maintenance crew, who have no formal title, but who act in
the capacity of assistant foremen-instructors, should be excluded from
the unit on the ground that they are supervisory employees.
There are nine persons classified as mill maintenance employees.
Their duties consist of keeping the mill property and mill grounds
in proper condition. They are responsible for maintaining the plumb-
ing, heating, and electrical systems, performing all painting and
carpentry work, and moving and realigning machinery. The record
indicates that these employees report for work at the same time that
regular production workers do, and are not actually required to work
other than a regular shift unless they are willing to do so. On occa
sions they are called upon to work nights or Sundays, when the plant is
not in operation, for the purpose of moving, installing, or realigning
machinery. Like the production employees, they perform manual la-
bor. Moreover, their interests are related to those of production em-
I Pointing out that no local has been chartered to act for the employees involved herein,
the Employer contends that the Petitioner may not itself validly represent these workers.
But this contention is clearly without merit inasmuch as the Petitioner is a labor organi-
zation within the meaning of the Act.
AMERICAN TWINE AND FABRIC CORPORATION 285
ployees. In view of the foregoing facts, and since no cogent reason ap-
pears for the separation of the mill maintenance employees, we- shall
follow our usual policy of including maintenance and production
employees in one bargaining Unit .2 e
The two assistant foremen-instructors receive about 10 to 15 percent
more in salary than other operators, and instruct and train new opera-
tors hired for work in various departments. They are responsible for
loom fixing and other machine repair work. They have general super-
vision over all employees whom they train and instruct, and have the
right to recommend the discharge of any of these employees in the event
their work is not satisfactory. These recommendations are accorded
considerable weight by the plant manager, who has the authority to
take final action. We believe that these employees possess sufficient
indicia of supervisory authority to warrant their exclusion from the
unit.
We find that all production and maintenance employees of the
Employer's Salmon Falls, New Hampshire, plant, excluding office and
clerical employees, executives, the plant manager, the assistant to
plant manager, the machinist, foremen, assistant foremen-instructors,
and all other supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote,-
discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of em-
ployees, or effectively recommend such action, constitute a unit ap-
propriate for the purposes of collective bargaining with the meaning
of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the
purposes of collective bargaining with American Twine and Fabric
Corporation, Salmon Falls, New Hampshire, an election by secret
ballot shall be conducted 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 First Region, acting in
this matter as agent for the National Labor Relations Board, and sub-
ject to Article III, Sections 10 and 11, of National Labor Relations
Board Rules and Regulations-Series 3, as amended, 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
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
2 Matter of Gluck Brothers, Inc., 45 N. L. R. B. 1159; Matter of Fogel Refrigerator Com-
pany, 61 N. L. R. B. 692.
286 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
those employees who have since quit or been discharged for cause and
have not been rehih•ed or reinstated prior to the date of the election, to
determine whether or not they desire to be represented by Textile
Workers Union of America (CIO), for the purposes of collective
bargaining.
CHAIRMAN HERZOG took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Direction of Election.
O