Gordon Mills, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 31, 1963

145 N.L.R.B. 771 (N.L.R.B. 1963)

GORDON MILLS, INC. 771
Gordon Mills, Inc. and Textile Workers' Union of America, AFL-
CIO, CLC. Case No. 10-RC-5426. December 31, 1963
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 Hearing Officer Stephen D.
Hise. The Hearing Officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from
prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Brown and Jenkins].
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 employees 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 Petitioner seeks a unit of production and maintenance em-
ployees, including plant clericals at the Employer's Forrest Mills
plant. The Employer contends that -a unit confined to the Forrest
plant is inappropriate and that the appropriate unit is one including
the production and maintenance employees at its Velvetone Mills
plant. It contends further that since its acquisition of the properties
in January 1962 it has instituted changes leading to 'a complete
integration of facilities so that separate plant units would no longer
be appropriate. There is no bargaining history for the plants involved
and no union is seeking to represent a multiplant unit.
The Forrest plant is located in Calhoun, Georgia, about 500 feet
distant from the Velvetone plant. Initially Forrest Mills and Velve-
tone Mills were operated as separate corporations, apparenty under
common ownership and control. In January 1962, through various
stock arrangements, control and ownership of these corporations
passed to the Employer.' The present Employer retained the names
Forrest Mills and Velvetone Mills. There was no change in the prod-
ucts manufactured and each plant sold its products under the labels of
Forrest Mills and Velvetone Mills, respectively. Production ma-
chinery and equipment are similar in the two plants, but at Forrest
Mills the Employer manufactures broadloom carpeting in rolls con-
taining up to 200 or 300 feet of carpet, whereas at Velvetone the Em-
ployer manufactures broadloom rugs in various room sizes.
' It appears that the Employer itself is a wholly owned subsidiary of Cabin Crafts, Inc
145 NLRB No. 78.
772 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The record is somewhat unclear as to the precise changes accom-
plished as a result of the change in ownership. It is established, how-
ever, that the Employer maintains only one general office and one
personnel office located in the Velvetone building. Forrest Mills has
its own sales and service office. Other services are of a general nature
and the equipment and personnel engaged in performing them while
rendering services to both plants, may be located separately in either
the Forrest Mills building or the Velvetone Mills building. Hiring and
labor relations are uniform for both plants, and such policies are
formulated and executed by the Employer's president or personnel
manager. Actual hiring, however, is done either through the produc-
tion manager, who maintains his office in the Velvetone plant, or the as-
sistant production manager who is located in and is normally in change
of the Forrest Mills plant 2 Hirings at the Forrest Mills plant are
subject to the approval of the production manager. Each plant has
its own subordinate supervision.
Work classifications are said to be in the main common to both
plants, but some differences do exist. Because of the different prod-
ucts manufactured, Velvetone employs female workers who make up
40 percent of the work force and who perform such operations as
binding, serging, and carving-services that are not performed or
required at Forrest Mills. Wage rates are uniform where classifica-
tions are the same. Payrolls for both plants are prepared at the
general office. Paydays for the respective plant's employees differ,
and it also appears that employees at Velvetone have longer lunch
periods than do the employees at Forrest Mills.
Certain equipment such as motor vehicles and hyster trucks are
used in the service of both plants, as are the machines and equipment
in the single machine shop maintained by the Employer at the For-
rest plant. Although two separate crews of men may do the truck-
driving and maintenance work for both plants, a total of only five
workers are engaged in these common assignments. There is only
one warehouse in operation and, for the receipt of incoming materials,
employees from either shipping department may be used depending
on the employees available. Although the Employer maintains that
it is its policy to interchange employees whenever the need arises,
there is little in the record to substantiate any claim to a significant
amount of interchange. Insofar as the record discloses, since Janu-
ary 1962 only two Velvetone employees were assigned for a period
of a week to the Forrest Mills plant. There is no evidence that any
2 Although the production manager's auhority extends to both plants, he normally over-
sees production at the Velvetone plant.
GORDON MILLS, INC. 773
Forrest Mills employee has been assigned to work at the Velvetone
plant.'
On the foregoing evidence we cannot conclude that the unit re-
quested by the Petitioner, limited to the employees at the Forrest
Mills plant, is inappropriate. That Forrest Mills and Velvetone
Mills are now part of a single corporate enterprise and that the
change in ownership has resulted in certain integrated operations
cannot be questioned. But, as the Board has had occasion to observe,
the singleness of the corporate enterprise does not necessarily estab-
lish that only an employer-,vide or multiplant unit is appropriate 4
Equally important is the extent to which a plant, notwithstanding
a degree of integration, has maintained its separate identity.
In the instant case the record shows that the Forrest Mills plant
for all purposes that concern its day-to-day operations is under the
effective supervision of the assistant production manager. Forrest
Mills employees are separately supervised and there is no significant
interchange. While there has been some integration, it has been
mainly at the managerial level. Forrest Mills is producing the
same product it did before it was acquired by the Employer; its
work force retains the same stability it had previously and the same
differences in the composition of the work force exists. While there
may be some common use of services or facilities, they are not of
such proportion that they tend to destroy the separate identities of
the plants. We are persuaded on the basis of the entire record in
the case that the Forrest Mills employees have enjoyed and continue
to enjoy a community of interest in the terms and conditions of
their employment separate and apart from those of the employees
at Velvetone Mills.
It has long been established that a single plant unit is presump-
tively appropriate under the Act. Therefore, unless a plant has
been effectively merged into a more comprehensive unit by bargaining
history, or is so integrated with another as to negate its separate
identity, it remains an appropriate unit even though a different and
more comprehensive unit might also be appropriate. Assuming that
the unit urged by the Employer is appropriate, it nevertheless is not
the only appropriate unit. It has not been the Board's policy to
3 While the hearing was in progress , the Employer moved its sample cutting operations,
which consists of two or three employees , from a temporary building next to the Fori est
plant to the warehouse at Velvetone . It argues that the Petitioner 's request to include
these employees in its Forrest plant unit demonstrates that it is seeking employees in
both plants . However, the record shows that, notwithstanding the transfer, these men
are still under the supervision of the assistant production manager in charge of the Forrest
plant. We find that these employees are appropriately included in the unit
4Dixte Belle Mills, Inc, a Wholly-Owoned Subsidiary of Bell Industries , Inc, 139
NLRB 629
774 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
compel labor organizations to seek representation in a larger unit
unless the unit requested is inappropriate .5 The facts here do not
reveal such a degree of integration or merger of operations as would
make the single-plant unit requested inappropriate.
In view of the foregoing and upon the entire record in the case,
especially the degree of autonomy reserved to the Forrest Mills plant,
the lack of substantial interchange, the absence of a bargaining his-
tory, and the fact that no labor organization seeks to represent a
multiplant unit, we find that the unit requested by the Petitioner
will assure to employees the fullest freedom in exercising the rights
guaranteed by the Act and is therefore appropriate.'
There remains for consideration the question as to whether five
individuals employed at Forrest Mills should be excluded from or
included in the unit. The Petitioner contends that Jack Stanfield,
Johnny Mack Thompson, Frank Campbell, and shipping clerk Bailey
Nix are supervisors and should be excluded on that basis, and that
laboratory clerk Larry Black should be excluded either on the ground
that he is a supervisor or a technical employee. The Employer ap-
parently takes no position with respect to Stanfield, Thompson, and
Campbell but wants the Board to determine their status. As to Nix
and Black the Employer contends that Nix is not a supervisor and
that Black is neither a supervisor nor a technical employee.
The Employer's witnesses testified that Stanfield is responsible for
getting the carpet run through the Forrest tufting machines. About
30 to 35 employees are involved in the process. Stanfield has the au-
thority to transfer employees from one shift to another and effectively
to recommend discharges. Thompson directs the work of about 10 or
12 employees in the latex operation. He has the authority to assign
work and effectively to recommend discharges. Campbell directs the
work of 9 or 10 employees in the drying and extracting operations.
He too has the authority to assign work and effectively recommend
discharges. In view of the authority possessed by Stanfield, Thomp-
son, and Campbell we find they are supervisors within the meaning
of the Act. We therefore exclude them from the unit.
As to Nix, the record shows that he receives the orders for ship-
ment of Forrest products. Although there are from 9 to 12 employees
engaged in order filling, there is no evidence that Nix directs their
work or that he exercises any supervisory authority over these em-
ployees. We find that Nix is not a supervisor, and accordingly we
include him in the unit.
Laboratory clerk Black's duties are to develop shades and colors
from chemical formulas already developed. He has no employees to
supervise. His job requires no formal education or technical skills.
6 Dixie Belle Mtiils, Inc, etc., supra
8 I bid.
MONARCH HARDWARE & MFG. COMPANY 775
Although Black on one occasion substituted for the night shift super-
intendent when the latter was on vacation, there is no evidence that he
has exercised supervisory authority on any other occasion. The iso-
lated instance of his serving in a supervisory post is not sufficient to
constitute Black a supervisor within the meaning of the Act. In
view of the foregoing, we find that Black is neither a supervisor nor a
technical employee. Accordingly, we shall include him in the unit.
On the foregoing evidence and on the record as a whole, we find that
the following employees of the Employer constitute a unit appropriate
for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Sec-
tion 9 (b) of the Act :
All production and maintenance employees at the Employer's For-
rest Mills plant, including truckdrivers, plant clerical employees, the
shipping clerk, and the laboratory clerk, but excluding all office cleri-
cal employees, professional employees, guards, and supervisors as
defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
D. J. Calvert & J. R. Calvert d/b/a Monarch Hardware & Mfg.
Company and Lodge 681, District 27 of the International Asso-
ciation of Machinists, AFL-CIO. Case No. 9-CA-2822. Janu-
ary 2, 1964
DECISION AND ORDER
On August 14, 1963, Trial Examiner A. Bruce Hunt issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Intermediate
Report. Thereafter, the Respondents filed exceptions to the Inter-
mediate Report.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Mem-
bers Leedom and Jenkins].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed The Board has considered the entire
record in this case, including the Intermediate Report and exceptions,
and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of
the Trial Examiner.'
' The Respondents ' request for oral argument is hereby denied as , in our opinion, the
record and exceptions adequately present the positions of the parties.
145 NLRB No. 83.