Hudson Hosiery Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsDec 26, 1945

64 N.L.R.B. 1520 (N.L.R.B. 1945)

In the Matter of HUDSON HOSIERY COMPANY and AMERICAN FEDERA- TION OF HOSIERY WORKERS, C. I. O. Case No. 5-I?-1.959.Decided December 26, 191j5 Mr. W. S. Blakeney, of Charlotte, N. C., for the Company. Mr. Herbert G. B. King, of Chattanooga, Tenn., and Mr. Robert D. Beame and Miss Adeline Stemp, both of Charlotte, N. C., for the Union. Mr. Oscar Geltman, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon a petition duly filed by American Federation of Hosiery Work- ers, C . I. 0., herein called the Union, alleging that a question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation of employees of Hudson Hosiery Company, herein called the Company, the National Labor Relations Board provided for an appropriate hearing upon due notice before George L. Weasler, Trial Examiner. The hearing was held at Charlotte, North Carolina, on August 9, 1945. The Company and the Union appeared and participated. All parties were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, to introduce evidence bearing on the issues, and to file briefs with the Board. At the hearing the Company moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that the Union's allegation therein that it represented a majority of the employees in an appropriate bargaining unit was not supported by the evidence. This motion is denied for reasons ,stated in Section III, infra. The Trial Examiner's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. All parties were afforded an opportunity to file briefs with the Board. Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY Hudson Hosiery Company, a North Carolina corporation having its principal office and place of business at Charlotte, North Carolina, and 64 N. L. R. B., No. 249. 1520 HUDSON HOSIERY COMPANY 1521 maintaining a sales office at New York City, is engaged at plants lo- cated at Charlotte, North Carolina, in the manufacture and sale of women's full-fashioned hosiery. During the year 1944, the Company purchased raw materials, consisting chiefly of cotton and rayon yarns, valued in excess of $500,000, of which approximately 90 percent was shipped into Charlotte from points outside the State of North Carolina. During the same period, finished products manufactured consisted of women's full-fashioned hosiery valued in excess of $1,000,000, of which more than 90 percent was shipped to points outside the State of North Carolina. The Company admits, and we find, that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED American Federation of Hosiery Workers is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, admitting to membership employees of the Company. III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION The Company has refused to grant recognition to the Union as the exclusive bargaining representative of its Monroe Road plant em- ployees until the Union has been certified by the Board in an appro- priate unit. A statement of a Field Examiner of the Board, introduced into evidence at the hearing, indicates that the Union represents a sub- stantial number of employees in the unit hereinafter found to be appropriate.' We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning the representation of employees of the Company, within the meaning of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 1 The Field Examiner reported that the Union submitted 267 membership application cards, and that there are 550 employees in the appropriate unit. The Union 's petition filed herein alleges that the Union represents a majority of the employees in an appropriate unit. Because this allegation is not supported by the Field Examiner's report, the Company contends that the petition should be dismissed. We are of the opinion that this contention is without merit We have frequently held that in order to set in motion the investigatory processes of the Board, a union is not required to estab- lish that it has received designation cards from a majority of the employees in the appropri- ate unit. Whether its claim of majority status is valid is a matter which in a representa- tion proceeding the Board determines by means of secret ballots cast in an election among the employees involved The Field Examiner's report is used by the Board only to determine administratively whether the Union's prima facie showing is substantial enough to war- rant expenditure of the Board ' s time and funds in conducting an election . See Fifth Annual Report, page 54, Matter of Grand Rapids Fibre Cord Company, 56 N. L. R. B. 543. 670417--46-vol. 64 97 1522 DECISION S OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT The Company operates two plants in Charlotte, North Carolina, one plant located on Brevard Street, the other on Monroe Road. The plants are approximately 4 miles apart. They are under the same general supervision. Part of the manufacturing operation is carried on at each plant, and materials are trucked up and back between the plants during various stages of the manufacturing process. In the last proceeding affecting the Company's employees 2 we con- sidered substantially the same facts as are now presented and, for the most part, the same contentions with respect to the scope and com- position of an appropriate unit. Three employers were involved in the prior proceeding ,3 but the record indicates that these employers have since consolidated to form the Company which appears herein. In our Decision and Direction of Election, we stated : The manufacture of hosiery by the Companies proceeds sub- stantially in the following manner : all raw materials are received by Hudson Hosiery at the Brevard Street plant and transported by truck to the Monroe Road plant where the initial process takes place in the throwing department of Hudson Hosiery. This operation results in the transformation of the raw materials into knitting yarn. The yarn is then taken to another section of the building where it is delivered to Hudson Knitting and Oakhurst. These latter two companies apply the knitting process to comple- tion, Hudson Knitting producing full-fashioned hosiery and, Oakhurst, seamless hosiery. The unfinished stockings thus pro- duced are returned to Hudson Hosiery for further processing in its looping, seaming, and inspection departments which are also located in the Monroe Road plant. All stockings are then taken to the Brevard Street plant for mending, dyeing, boarding, finish- ing, packing, and shipping. The finished hosiery is comingled and marketed by Hudson Hosiery under two labels, "Hudson" and "Oakhurst." As previously noted, the Union desires to exclude all employees of Hudson Hosiery who are employed at the Brevard Street plant from the appropriate unit. It appears that the Union's reason for excluding the employees of the Brevard Street plant from its proposed unit is due to their apparent apathy to its or- ganizational campaign which, while it has been quite successful 2 Matter of Hudson Knitting Mills, Inc, 56 N. L R. B. 1250. There, the employees voted against representation by the Union, the only labor organization on the ballot ' In the prior proceeding, we found that because of their interlocking interests and func- tional correlation, the three employers constituted a single employer under the Act. HUDSON HOSIERY COMPANY 1523 at the Monroe Road plant, has not succeeded at the former plant. The record indicates that each of the various departments housed in the two plants conducts an independent operation in the over- all manufacturing process; that, with the exception of knitters, there is a marked difference between the function and skills of the employees working in the Monroe Road plant and those employed in the Brevarcl Street plant; and that there is no interchange of employees between the two plants other than an occasional shift- ing of production workers which is actually a transfer of surplus labor on a permanent basis. Furthermore, there is no history of collective bargaining among the Companies' employees which may be considered in determining the appropriate unit. While we recognize the high degree of integration among the various operations conducted at the two plants, we are of the opinion that, in view of the foregoing facts, and since the Monroe Road plant is geographically apart from the Brevard Street plant, the em- ployees of the Companies employed at the Monroe Road plant comprise a unit sufficiently identifiable for the purposes of collec- tive bargaining. Nor do we perceive any valid reason why these employees should be denied the right to bargain collectively merely because the employees of Hudson Hosiery at the Brevard Street plant apparently do not desire a collective bargaining rep- resentative at this timt'. Accordingly, we find that all produc- tion and maintenance employees of the Companies employed at the Monroe Road plant, except for certain named exclusions, con- stitute an appropriate bargaining unit. Our finding herein with' respect to the appropriate unit, however, does not preclude a later determination at another stage of self-organization that a more comprehensive unit is appropriate. There remains for consideration the specific composition of the appropriate unit. The Union desires to exclude from the appropriate unit fire- men who operate the plant's steam boilers; cafeteria employees who work in the plant's cafeteria; nurses who administer first- aid to employees involved in minor accidents; carpenters, car- penters' helpers, painters, and painters' helpers who perform general maintenance carpentry and painting in the plant; and truck drivers who transport materials between the two plants. The Union, asserting that it admits to membership only employees directly connected with the production of hosiery, claims that it has not tried to organize these employees of the Companies since they are not eligible to membership in the Union. Inasmuch as the Union has not attempted to organize these employees and since the majority of them are members of various crafts customarily 1524 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD represented by craft unions and the remainder perform functions unconnected with the manufacture of hosiery, we shall exclude the firemen, cafeteria employees, nurses, truck drivers, painters, painters' helpers, carpenters, and carpenters' helpers employed by the Company in the Monroe Road plant from the appropriate unit. The parties agree that executives , superintendents, foremen, and foreladies employed by the Companies should be excluded from any appropriate unit as supervisory employees. We shall exclude them from the appropriate unit. We shall also, in accordance with the agreement of the parties, exclude clerical employees. Subsequent to June 6, 1944, the date of our decision in the prior pro- ceeding, the Union again attempted to organize the employees at the Brevard Street plant, but it appears that its campaign met with no success and was abandoned.' In the instant case, the Union takes the same position it advanced in the prior case with respect to confining the 'scope of the appropriate unit to the employees employed at the Monroe Road plant, and with respect to the exclusion of the various categories of employees referred to above. The Company, taking the same position advanced by the employers in the prior case, maintains that all employees in both plants, excluding clerical employees, execu- tives, superintendents, foremen, foreladies, and any other supervisory employees, constitute an appropriate unit. We are persuaded that the i estimony presented in the instant case with respect to plant operations and to the functions and duties of the employees enumerated above is substantially the same as in the previous case, and warrants a similar determination. We conclude that production and maintenance employees of the Company employed at the Monroe Road plant constitute all appropriate unit. We shall, however, exclude from the unit firemen, cafeteria employees, nurses, truck drivers, painters, painters' helpers, carpenters, carpenters' helpers, clerical employees, executive superin- tendents, foremen, foreladies, and all other supervisory employees. In the prior proceeding, the Union maintained that fixers 5 should be included in the appropriate unit. Since the employers did not op- pose the Union's position, we included the fixers. However, subse- quent to our decision in the prior proceeding, we held that "there exists a well-established pattern of collective bargaining in the full-fashioned + A representative of the Union testified that since January 1945 no attempts have been made to organize the employees at the Brevard Street plant. c The Company employs a category of employees known and designated on the pay roll as "fixers." In the prior proceeding , the Union referred to the fixers as "machine fixers of mechanics ." In the instant proceeding , the Union refers to the fixers as "machine fixers it ad machine mechanics " HUDSON HOSIERY COMPANY 1525 [hosiery] industry whereby fixers are excluded from units of pro- duction and maintenance employees.", Contrary to the Company's desire, the Union now seeks to exclude the fixers from the unit. An officer of the Company testified that some fixers have supervisory func- tions and that others merely keep machinery in repair, but perform no supervisory functions. It appears that the fixers, like foremen, do not punch time clocks and are paid on a salary basis, whereas produc- tion workers punch time clocks and are paid on an hourly or piece- rate basis. An international representative of the Union testified, without contradiction, that fixers are deemed to be excluded as "em- ployees engaged in any kind of managerial position or work" from the coverage of a multiple-employer contract between the Union and an association comprised of 33 full-fashioned hosiery manufacturers. In view of the absence of any bargaining history at this plant, the Union's unwillingness to represent these employees, the custom which apparently prevails in the full-fashioned hosiery industry, and in ac- cordance with our practice in similar cases,? we shall exclude all the fixers. We find that all production and maintenance employees of the Com- pany at the Monroe Road plant, excluding fixers, firemen, cafeteria employees, nurses, truck drivers, painters, painters' helpers, carpen- ters, carpenters' helpers, clerical employees, executives, superintend- ents, foremen, foreladies, and all other supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or effectively recommend such action, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES We shall direct that the question concerning representation which has arisen be resolved by an election by secret ballot among the em- ployees in the appropriate unit who were employed during the pay- roll period immediately preceding the date of the Direction of Election herein, subject to the limitations and additions set forth in the Direction. DIRECTION OF ELECTION 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 9, of National Labor o Matter of Mock, Judson, Voehringer Company of Noith Carolina , Ine, 63 N L R B. 96. See also Matter of Adams-Millis Corporation , Plant Number 7, 63 N. L. R B. 362 ° See cases cited in footnote 6, supra. 1526 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 3, as amended, it is hereby Dim;rcTED that, as part of the investigation to ascertain representa- tives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Hudson Hosiery Company, Charlotte, North Carolina, an election by secret ballot shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later than sixty ( 60) days from the date of this Direction, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Fifth Region, acting in this matter as agent for the National Labor Relations Board, and subject to Article III, Sections 10.and 11, of said Rules and Regulations, among the employees in the unit found appropriate in Section IV, above, who were employed during the pay-roll period immediately preced- ing 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 those employees who have since quit or been dis- charged for cause and have not been rehired or reinstated prior to the date of the election , to determine whether or not they desire to be represented by American Federation of Hosiery Workers, C. I. 0., for the purposes of collective bargaining. Mn. JOHN M. HOUSTON took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Direction of Election.