Colonial Shirt Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 29, 1955

114 N.L.R.B. 1214 (N.L.R.B. 1955)

1214 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
3. The Union has been since sometime prior to October 1, 1952, and now is, the
exclusive representative of all employees in the aforesaid unit for the purposes of
collective bargaining, within the meaning of Section 9 (a) of the Act.
4. By failing and refusing on or about November 19, 1954, and at all times
thereafter, to supply the Union with the wage rates of individual employees in said
unit, the Respondent engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8 (a) (5) of the Act.
5. By such refusal to bargain, thereby interfering with, restraining, and coercing
its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, the
Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8 (a) (1) of the Act.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
Colonial Shirt Corporation and United Garment Workers of
America, AFL, Petitioner. Case No. 10-RC-3245. November 29,
1955
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before David L. Trezise, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from
prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the National Labor Relations Act.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer, within the meaning of Section
9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The parties are in basic agreement as to the composition of the
unit. However, the Employer would include and the Petitioner would
exclude certain individuals classified as assistant supervisors, and
office clerical employees.
The Employer's production operations are divided into three main
departments each under the control of a department supervisor. The
cutting department employs approximately 75 employees, the sewing
department employs approximately 650 employees, and the pressing
department employs approximately 150 employees. The sewing de-
partment has 2 assistant supervisors and the other 2 departments each
have 1 assistant supervisor.
The assistant supervisors receive instructions from their department
supervisors on the basis of which they see that work assignments are
performed in a satisfactory manner and that the production employ-
es are amply supplied with materials and supplies so that the work
114 NLRB No. 189.
COLONIAL SHIRT CORPORATION 1215
progresses in an orderly and satisfactory manner. Except for the
assistant supervisor in the cutting department, the assistant super-
visors do no production work. The assistant supervisor in the cut-
ting department performs actual production work about 50 percent
of the time, but he is not assigned to any particular machine, his work
being in the nature of troubleshooting to eliminate production bottle-
necks, when they occur. All the assistant supervisors are paid on a
salary basis. Each reports faulty work and misconduct of employees
under his direction to the department supervisor, who makes his own
investigation of the matter reported. None has authority to hire,
discharge, or discipline employees. Under all the circumstances, in-
cluding the fact that under the Employer's theory the ratio of super-
visors in the cutting, sewing, and pressing departments would be 1
to 75, 1 to 650, and 1 to 150, respectively, we find that the assistant
supervisors in these departments responsibly direct the performance
of employees in those departments.' Accordingly, we find they are
supervisors within the meaning of the Act, and we exclude them from
the unit.
Shipping Department Foreman and Boxing Department Supervisor
The boxing department employs approximately 15 employees who
sort shirts according to size and color and place the shirts in boxes
which are then sent to the shipping department where they are packed
and loaded for shipment to the Employer's customers. The shipping
department employs approximately 12 employees.
These departments are operated under the direction of the shipping
department foreman and the boxing department supervisor, who re-
ceive their orders directly from and report directly to the plant man-
ager. On the basis of the orders received from the plant manager,
they make work assignments and see that the work is properly per-
formed. The shipping department foreman engages in actual packing
and loading operations about 50 percent of the time. Both the ship-
ping department foreman and the boxing department supervisor
report unsatisfactory work and misconduct of employees to the plant
manager. On the basis of these reports, the plant manager will, de-
pending on the seriousness of the offense reported, either give instruc-
tions that the employee involved be reprimanded by his supervisor,
or after an, independent investigation assess a more serious penalty.
Neither the shipping department foreman nor the boxing department
supervisor has authority to hire, discharge, or discipline employees.
They are paid on an hourly basis, the shipping department foreman's
rate of pay being from 40 to 50 percent higher than the rate of
employees working under his direction.
1 Wayside Pi ess, Inc, 103 NLRB 11.
1216 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
In view of the foregoing we find that the shipping department fore-
man and the boxing department supervisor responsibly direct and
control the work of the employees in their departments. Accordingly,
we find them to be supervisors within the meaning of the Act, and we
exclude them from the unit.
The buck boy: The buck boy receives shirts from the sewing depart-
ment, via a chute running from the sewing department on the second
floor to an area immediately back of the pressing department on the
first floor. He prepares the shirts for pressing so there is no delay
when the pressing department employees come to pick up the shirts.
He generally works alone, but at times may have as many as three
other employees working with him. The plant manager supervises
his work and that of the extra employees working with him from time
to time. The buck boy is an hourly paid employee. He has never
reported faulty work on the part of employees who work with him,
although the plant manager has found it necessary to discharge em-
ployees engaged in such work. We find that the buck boy is not a
supervisor within the meaning of the Act, and we include him in the
unit.
We find that all production and maintenance employees employed
by the Employer at its Woodbury, Tennessee, plant, including all
employees in the cutting, sewing, pressing, boxing, and shipping
departments, and the buck boy, but excluding office clerical employees,z
watchmen 3 and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the mean-
ing of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
5. The Employer is currently engaged in an extensive cost analysis
of its operation to determine, whether it will be necessary to curtail its
working force when the recently passed amendment to the Fair Labor
Standards Act raising the minimum hourly rate goes into effect.
The Employer's representative stated that it expects to make a sub-
stantial cut in the working force within 90 days. He admitted how-
ever that the 90-day limit is speculative at this time. In view of the
foregoing the Employer contends that the election should be delayed
until the cut in the working force goes into effect. We find no merit
in this contention. Neither the number of employees to be laid off
nor the time of the layoff has as yet been established. Moreover, both
2 The Employer seeks to include the office clerical employees in the unit. We exclude
them from the unit, in accordance with our usual policy. Beatrice Foods Co, 112 NLRB
459: Dura Steel Products Co , 109 NLRB 179
g Both parties agree that the watchmen should be included in the unit . However, the
record shows that the watchmen spend 50 percent of their time making regular rounds of
the plant , during which they punch clocks at regular stations . One of the watchmen is
deputized by the sheriff . None of the watchmen carry guns . However , they are required
to report the presence of unauthorized personnel on the plant premises and they report
violations of safety and plant rules. We find that the watchmen are guards within the
meaning of the Act and, accordingly , we exclude them from the unit. Walterboro Manu-
}acturing Corporation, 106 NLRB 1083 . Blumenthal & Co., 113 NLRB 791.
MILLER SHINGLE Co. 1217
decisions depend on the results of the cost analysis which has not been
completed. Accordingly, in the absence of more definite plans for a
reduction in the Employer's working force, we shall conduct the elec-
tion in accordance with our usual policies. as set forth in the Direction
of Election below.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] ,
- MEMBER MURDOCK. took no part in the' consideration of the above
Decision and Direction of Election.
Miller Shingle Co., a partnership composed of P. D. Miller and
Bruce L. Miller, ' Petitioner and Local 23-93, International
Woodworkers of America , CIO and Puget Sound District
Council , Lumber and Sawmill 'Workers Union, AFL.2 Case No.
19-RM-170. November 09,1955
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Melton Boyd, hearing officer.
The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prej-
udicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9
(c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Employer alleges that the appropriate unit is confined to its
production and maintenance employees engaged in logging operations
at Granite Falls, in Snohomish County, Washington. The Council
is in accord with the Employer's unit position. Local 93 contends that
a single-employer unit is inappropriate on the ground that, as a mini-
mum, the Employer is associated in multiemployer bargaining with
six other employers having operations in Snohomish County.
The Employer's logging operations are within the Douglas fir area
of Washington and Oregon. In Jones c Anderson Logging Com-
pany, Inc., 114 NLRB 1203, we outlined the bargaining pattern
which existed prior to 1954 between employers in the lumber industry
I The Employer' s name appears as amended at the hearing
9 The Unions are herein called Local 93 and the Council, respectively
114 NLRB No. 187.