Harris Langenberg Hat Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsJul 7, 1953

106 N.L.R.B. 19 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

HARRIS LANGENBERG IIAT COMPANY 19 the discussion and findings of the Trial Examiner which the Board has adopted.' D. The scope of the Board's order The Respondent contends that the violations found do not justify the scope of the Board's order. In view of the Respond- ent's discriminatory discharge of two employees, we consider that the broad cease-and-desist order is necessary in order to effectuate the policies of the Act.' ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Respondent's "Motion for Reconsideration , Motion for Rehearing, and Motion to Dismiss" be, and it hereby is, denied. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Decision and Order is sued herein be, and it hereby is, amended by deleting therefrom the phrase "Region 6" wherever it appears in said Decision and Order, and that the Decision and Order, as printed, shall appear as hereby amended. 4In this part of its argument , the Respondent contends that there is no evidence to support the Trial Examiner 's finding that Wally Watkins was a supervisor. However, R. H. Osbrink included Watkins' name in a list of top management personnel 5 Southeastern Pipe Line Company, 104 NLRB 575, and cases cited therein. HARRIS LANGENBERG HAT COMPANY and UNITED HAT- TERS, CAP AND MILLINERY WORKERS, INTERNATIONAL UNION, AFL, Petitioner . Case No. 14 -RC-2222. July 7, 1953 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 Harry G. Carlson , hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. The Employer's request for oral argument is hereby denied as the record and briefs , in our opinion , adequately set forth the issues and positions of the parties. 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 [Members Houston, Murdock, and Styles] . Upon the entire record in this case , the Board finds: 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the mean- ing of the Act. Z. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain employees of the Employer. 322615 0 - 54 - 3 20 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representation of employees of the Employer within the mean- ing of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The Petitioner seeks a unit of production and mainte- nance employees at the Employer's Mascoutah, Illinois, plant. The Employer contends that the only appropriate unit is one that also includes its other plants at Lebanon, Illinois, and Marthasville, New Haven, and Berger, Missouri. It therefore moves the dismissal of the petition or, alternatively, requests the Board to conduct an election among the production and maintenance employees in the company wide unit. There is no history of collective bargaining at any of these plants. The Employer is engaged in the production of men's hats and caps at its 5 plants. It has a central office in St. Louis, Missouri, where the payroll is prepared for these plants and records for all employees are kept. The Employer's 2 top officials, who are located in this office, formulate company labor policy on such matters as group insurance, wage sched- ules, and bonus systems. These officials also exercise general supervision over the plants which they visit. In addition, the operational department heads stationed in St. Louis make weekly rounds of the various plants. Although the foregoing factors militate in favor of an em- ployer-wide unit, they are not so compelling as to require our holding that no other unit is appropriate. There are other factors which justify a unit confined to the Mascoutah plant. Thus, this plant carries on manufacturing operations that are for the most part independent from those of the other plants which are 10 to 102 miles fromMascoutah. Each plant is under the separate immediate supervision of a plant superintendent, who hires and discharges employees, and has the authority to adjust employees' wages within the range determined by the central office. Although one supervisor was transferred within recent years to Mascoutah, there has been no interchange of employees between plants. In view of these circumstances, and the facts that there has been no prior history of collective bargaining and that no union is seeking an employer-wide unit, we find that a single plant unit at the Mascoutah plant is appro- priate.' In reaching this conclusion, the extent of the Peti- tioner's organization among the Employer's employees has not been the controlling consideration. Accordingly, we hereby deny both the Employer's motion to dismiss the petition and its alternative request for a multiplant election. We find that all production and maintenance employees at the Employer's Mascoutah, Illinois, plant, excluding office clerical employees, professional employees, and supervisors as defined 'Charles N. Ingram and Mary C Ingram, d/b/a Charles Ingram Lumber Company, 100 NLRB 440; Perfection Garment Company, 91 NLRB 1421; Telechron, Inc., 90 NLRB 931 2 Telechron, Inc., supra; Waldensian Hosiery Mills, Inc., 83 NLRB 743. FAWCETT-DEARING PRINTING COMPANY 21 in the Act,' constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] 3 We find in agreement with the parties that Irene Gaffney, Bea Ritter, Florence Flamuth, Melvin Schnure, Elmer Jung, Theodore Schwartz, and Margaret Fehl are supervisors under the Act. FAWCETT-DEARING PRINTING COMPANY' and INTERNA- TIONAL MAILERS UNION, Petitioner. Case No. 9-RC-1905. July 7, 1953 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 Orville E. Andrews, hearing officer . 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 [Members Murdock, Styles , and Peter- son].. 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 employees of the Employer.' The Intervenor contends that its current contract with the Employer, as amended, bars this proceeding . The Employer agrees with this contention . The Petitioner contends that the contract is no bar. On September 2, 1950, the Intervenor and Employer executed a contract which provided: This agreement shall be effective from the 21st day of August, 1950, until the 1st day of April, 1953, and shall 1 The Employer's name appears as amended at the hearing. 2 The hearing officer properly rejected proof of alleged unfair labor practices. Canada Dry Ginger Ale, Incorporated, 97 NLRB 597. The hearing officer also rejected the Em- ployer's offer of proof that the Petitioner, under its international constitution, will not accord equal privileges to all employees within the unit, and that a separate unit will be established for "fringe" employees. In our opinion neither the facts appearing in the record, nor in the Employer's offer of proof, warrant a finding that the Petitioner will not accord adequate representation to all employees within the unit hereinafter found appropriate. However, if it is later shown, on appropriate motion, that equal representation has been denied to any of the employees in the unit, the Board will consider the question at such time. Veneer Products, Inc., 81 NLRB 492, 494; Hughes Tool Company, 104 NLRB 318. The mo- tions of the Employer and Intervenor to dismiss are denied for the reasons hereinafter set forth in paragraph numbered 3. 3Louisville Printing Specialties and Paper Products Union No. 561, International Printing Pressmen and Assistants Union of North America, AFL, was permitted to intervene on the basis of contractual interest. 106 NLRB No. 3.