French Maid Dress Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 16, 1938

5 N.L.R.B. 325 (N.L.R.B. 1938)

In the Matter of FRENCH MAID DRESS COMPANY, INC., and INTERNA-
TIONAL LADIES GARMENT WORKERS UNION, LOCAL No. 166
Case No. R-330-Decided February 16, 1938
Ladies' Dress Manufacturing Industry-Investigation of Representatvves:
controversy concerning representation of employees-Strike-Unit Appropriate
for Collective Bargaining : production employees ; no controversy as to-Repre-
sentatives : proof of choice : signed authorizations ; comparison of pay roll with
union list-Certification of Representatives : upon proof of majority repre-
sentation.
Mr. Charles A. Graham, for the Board.
Weisman, Quinn, Allan & Spett, by Mr. Isidore Miller, of New
New York City, for the Company.
Isserman & Isserman, by Mr. Abraham J. Isserman, of Newark,
N. J., for the Union.
Mr. Harry A. Sellery, Jr., of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On September 15, 1937, International Ladies Garment Workers
Union, Local No. 166, herein called the Union, filed with the Regional
Director for the Second Region (New York City) a petition alleging
that a question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the repre-
sentation of employees at the Long Branch, New Jersey, factory of
French Maid Dress Company, Inc.,' New York City, herein called
the Company, and requesting an investigation and certification of
representatives pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. On September 20, 1937,
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 Regulations-Series 1,
as amended, ordered an investigation and authorized the Regional
Director to conduct it and to provide for an appropriate hearing upon
due notice.
On October 2, 1937, the Regional Director issued a notice of
hearing, copies of which were duly served upon the Company and
1 Incorrectly designated as French Maid, Inc., in the petition and notice of hearing.
325
326 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the Union. Pursuant to the notice, a hearing was held in New York
City on October 7, 1937, before H. R. Korey, 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-examine witnesses,
and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues was afforded all
parties. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner
on objections to the introduction of evidence made during the hear-
ing and finds that no prejudicial errors were committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
French Maid Dress Company, Inc., is a New York corporation
having offices in New York City and a factory in Long Branch, New
Jersey. The business of the Company is the manufacture and sale
of ladies' dresses.
All raw materials for the manufacture of its dresses are purchased
by the Company in New York. Such materials consist principally
of acetates, french crepe, cotton, trimming, and the other items
usually required and used in the manufacture of ladies' dresses. The
raw materials are shipped from New York by a hired truck to the
factory in New Jersey, and the manufactured dresses are shipped to
the Company's offices in New York in the same manner. At the
New York offices the dresses are sold to women's dress stores located
throughout the United States. The Company's dresses are then
shipped from New York to such stores by express.
The Company has approximately 60 production employees at its
factory in New Jersey and approximately ten employees at its offices
in New York.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Ladies Garment Workers Union, Local No. 166, is a
labor organization, affiliated with the Committee for Industrial Or-
ganization. Local No. 166, which admits to membership produc-
tion employees at the Company's factory, has approximately 1,400
members.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Union began to conduct an organization drive at the Com-
pany's factory in July 1937 . Up to September 22, 1937, the Union
had secured the signatures of 45 of the Company's production em-
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 327
ployees to cards authorizing the Union to represent the signers for
the purposes of collective bargaining. Thereafter, prior to the issu-
ance on October 2, 1937, of the notice of hearing in this proceeding,
the Union secured the signatures of three more production employees
to such cards. Nevertheless, at the hearing coun°se1 for the Com-
pany contended that it did not know if the production employees
at its factory wished to be represented by the Union for the purposes
of collective bargaining.
We therefore find that a question affecting commerce has arisen
concerning the representation of employees of the Company.
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 com-
merce and the free flow of commerce.
V. TIIE APPROPRIATE UNIT
In its petition the Union alleged that all the production employees
at the Company's factory in New Jersey constitute a unit appropriate
for the purposes of collective bargaining. The Company raised no
objection to this allegation at the hearing.
No claim was made that supervisory employees at the Company's
factory should be included with the production employees at the
factory. In accordance with our usual practice, therefore, we shall
exclude supervisory employees from the unit including the other
production employees at the Company's factory.
We find that the production employees at the Company's factory
in Long Branch, New Jersey, excluding supervisory employees, con-
stitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining
and that such unit will insure to employees of the Company the full
benefit of their right to self-organization and collective bargaining,
and will otherwise effectuate the policies of the Act.
VI. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
The Union's authorization cards, referred to above, were intro-
duced in evidence 2 for the purpose of checking them in order to
identify the signers as employees of the Company. The Trial Exam-
2 Board 's Exhibit No. 2 The original objection to the introduction of these cards in
evidence on the ground of lack of proof of authenticity was altered to an objection that
the signers had not been identified as employees of the Company.
80535-38-22
328 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
iner requested an officer of the Company at the close of the hearing
to submit in evidence two of the Company's pay rolls : one for the
pay-roll period prior to the filing of the petition; and one as of the
day before the beginning of the strike referred to below. A com-
parison of the two pay rolls with the cards in evidence discloses the
names of three persons, Angelo Strollo, Lillian Walch, and Augustine
Cocuzza, appearing on three cards respectively, but not appearing on
either of the pay rolls submitted by the Company. Since the exclu-
sion of the cards of these three persons would not affect the results,
we shall exclude the cards of Angelo Strollo, Lillian Walch, and
Augustine Cocuzza in this proceeding in making a determination of
the representative of the unit.
At the hearing it was testified that the signer of one of the cards
had continued to work in the factory during the strike called by
the Union, as described below. Such testimony may indicate that
this employee has impliedly repudiated her prior authorization to
the Union to represent her for the purposes of collective bargaining.
Accordingly, we shall exclude her card in this proceeding in making
a determination of the representative.
In making this determination we therefore exclude four of the
48 cards. After comparing the Company's two pay rolls with such
cards in order to identify the signers thereof as production em-
ployees at the Company's factory, we include the remaining 44 cards 3
As stated above, the Company's production employees at its Long
Branch, New Jersey, factory number about 60.
At a union meeting on September 22, 1937, at which most of the
production employees at the Company's factory who had signed such
cards were present, the employees unanimously voted to go on strike.
The strike began the next day, and the Company's factory was
picketed by the Union. At the time of the hearing the strike and
the picketing were still being carried on. In view of the provisions
of Section 2 (3) of the Act, however, the workers on strike are to
be regarded as employees.
We find, therefore, that the Union had been designated and selected
by a majority of the employees in the appropriate unit as their rep-
resentative for the purposes of collective bargaining. The Union is,
therefore, by virtue of Section 9 (a) of the Act, the exclusive repre-
sentative of all the employees in such unit for the purposes of col-
lective bargaining in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employ-
ment, and other conditions of employment, and we will so certify.
8 In such comparison we have also noted some slight variation in the spelling of a few
names between the name as it appears on the pay rolls and as it appears on the card. In
each case, such variation appears clearly immaterial.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 329
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
- Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the en-
tire record in the proceeding,) the Board makes the following con-
clusions of law :
1. A question affecting commerce has arisen concerning the repre-
sentation of employees at the Long Branch, New Jersey, factory of
French Maid Dress Company, Inc., New York City, within the mean-
ing of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National
Labor Relations Act.
2. The production employees of the Company at its Long Branch,
New Jersey, factory, excluding supervisory employees, constitute a
unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining, within
the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act.
3. International Ladies Garment Workers Union, Local No. 166,
is the exclusive representative of all the employees in such unit for
the purposes of collective bargaining, within the meaning of Section
9 (a) of the Act.
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
• By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the 'National
Labor Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act and pursuant to Article III, Section 8, of National Labor
Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 1, as amended,
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that International Ladies Garment Workers
Union, Local No. 166, has been designated and selected by a majority
of the production employees, excluding supervisory employees, of
French Maid Dress Company, Inc., New York City, at its Long
Branch, New Jersey, factory, as their representative for the purposes
of collective bargaining and that, pursuant to Section 9 (a) 'of the,
National Labor Relations Act, International Ladies Garment Work-
ers Union, Local No. 166, is the exclusive representative of all such
employees for the purposes of collective bargaining in regard to
rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of
employment.