K W B Manufacturing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 27, 1953

106 N.L.R.B. 1305 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

K W B MANUFACTURING COMPANY 1305
interstate enterprise consisting of several companies, all of
which constitute a single employer, we find that it would not
effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction in
this case.5
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
5 See Chestnutt's Stores Inc., of Lufkin, Texas, 100 NLRB 490; see also Toledo Service
Parking Company, 96 NLRB 263.
K W B MANUFACTURING COMPANY and LOS ANGELES JOINT
BOARD, AMALGAMATED CLOTHING WORKERS OF AMER-
ICA, Petitioner. Case No. 21-RC-3212. October 27, 1953
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Leo J. Kloos,
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 mean-
ing of the Act.
'2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent
certain employees of the Employer.
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 main issue in this case relates to the scope of the
unit. The Petitioner requests two separate units, one limited
to the cutters and their apprentices, the other generally in-
cluding all other production and operating employees. Local
125, United Garment Workers of America, AFL, herein called
Local 125, and the Employer urge a single unit of all employees.
Local 36, United Garment Workers of America, AFL, herein
called Local 36, did not explicate a fixed position on the scope
of the unit but seemed to indicate that it desired either to join
the cutters with the production employees or to keep them in
a separate but multiemployer group.
The Employer is a California corporation and is engaged
at its Los Angeles, California, plant in the manufacture of
washable service garments.
The cutters perform the traditional cutting operations of
the garment industry. It is not disputed that they exercise the
traditional skill of their craft. The bulk of the remaining
employees are machine operators who make up the garments.
In addition there are bundle boys and girls. One of these works
entirely in the production area , making bundles when neces-
sary, and the other three sort cloth in the cutting department,
make bundles and deliver them to the production department.
There is also a shipping department. The shipping employees
106 NLRB No. 238.
1306 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
package the products of the plant and ship the parcels out.
Two other employees , called warehousemen, work under the
shipping department foreman and assist the shipping clerks.
The record shows that for about 16 years the employees
here involved have been represented in collective bargaining,
the cutters by Local 36 and the production employees by Local
125. These Unions have had successive separate contracts on
this limited unit basis . It also appears that Local 125 has held
an additional agreement in the nature of a supplemental
coverage . Although at the hearing the representative of Local
125 seemed to refer to this agreement as a master contract
covering all the employees in the plant , the agreement does
not set out a specific recognition clause and is generally vague
as to the scope . As to the bargaining history of the cutters and
their apprentices , the Employer ' s contract with Local 36 sets
out a multiemployer unit including five other employers. The
agreement , however, appears to be a members-only contract.
Although , as indicated , the bargaining history at this plant
may have been somewhat confused and is not fully revealed in
the record , it is clear that collective bargaining has pro-
gressed substantially on the basis of separate units for the
cutters' and the production employees ' groups . Apart from
the bargaining history, it also appears clear that the cutters
here involved compose a homogeneous and functionally coherent
group of highly skilled employees such as the Board usually
accords the privilege of separate representation, if they so
desire.'
As a witness at the hearing , the representative of Local
36 first stated that a unit limited to the cutters of the Employer
was inappropriate because they have been represented on a
multiemployer basis in the past. Later, he explained that he
was not authorized to speak on behalf of his Local . The record
also contains some indication that the representative of the
parent organization of the two AFL Locals was not prepared
to urge the multiemployer unit contention , and he did not do so.
In view of these facts , the apparent members-only character
of the contract heretofore covering the cutters , and the
Employer's present desire to bargain on a single - employer
basis --an intention which is revealed by its agreement with
Local 125 on the unit issue--we conclude that whatever multi-
employer bargaining may have occurred in the past is no im-
pediment to the establishment of a single - employer cutters'
unit in this case.
Accordingly , in view of the craft character of the cutters'
group and the substantial history of separate bargaining in
this case , no reason appears why the employees may not be
represented in two units , as the Petitioner and Local 36 de-
sire . At the same time, because both groups work in the same
plant, and because Local 125 wishes to represent them all in
a single unit , they may also constitute a single bargaining unit.
1Daniel Aminoff, et al., 104 NLRB 985
K W B MANUFACTURING COMPANY 1307
We shall, therefore, make no final unit determination pending
the outcome of the elections directed below.
The Employer would exclude the shipping clerks on the
ground that they have not been covered by its past contracts
with either Local 125 or Local 36. These employees work in
the shipping department and, so far as the record shows, per-
form the usual duties associated with their job classifications.
As their interests are similar to those of the production
employees, we shall, in accordance with established Board
policy, include the shipping clerks in the production employees'
voting group.2
The Employer also requests exclusion of warehousemen,
who also have not been represented by any union in the past.
While the evidence on warehousemen is extremely sketchy,
it does appear that there are two employees in this classifica-
tion and that they are included in the shipping department. The
location of the shipping department is not shown in the record,
but there is a casual suggestion that it is at another location
or locations. Without distinguishing between shipping clerks
and warehousemen, the Petitioner would exclude the latter. As
the nature of the Employer' s operations suggests no reason
to believe that the two warehousemen do anything other than
care for the products of the plant, we shall join them, like
the shipping clerks, with the production employees.
The head cutter is in charge of the cutting department and
directs the work of the cutters and their apprentices. His
recommendations as to the hire and discharge of cutting de-
partment personnel are followed by the Employer. Despite
his inclusion in Local 36's past contracts for the cutters, we
find that the head cutter is a supervisor, and we shall there-
fore exclude him from the cutters' voting group.
We shall at this time direct that separate elections be held
among the employees at the Employer's Los Angeles, Cali-
fornia, plant in the following voting groups:
(a) All production employees including bundle boys and
bundle girls, shipping clerks and warehousemen, but excluding
maintenance employees, truckdrivers, office clerical em-
ployees, guards, the floor salesman, the head shipping clerk,
and all supervisors as defined in the Act.
(b) All cutters and cutters' apprentices, excluding all
other employees, the head cutter, and all supervisors as de-
fined in the Act.
The failure of Local 36 to express a clear position on the
unit issue makes it uncertain as to whether both AFL unions
desire to compete in each voting group and exactly how they
desire to be named on the ballots. As Local 36 has expressed
no desire to represent the production employees, we shall
designate only the Petitioner and Local 125 for voting group
(a), and all three competing unions for voting group (b). If a
majority of the employees in either voting group selects a
2 Waterous Company, 92 NLRB 76.
1308 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
union other than that selected by a majority in the other, they
will be taken to have indicated their desire to constitute a
separate bargaining unit, and the Regional Director conducting
the elections is instructed to issue a certification of representa-
tives to the labor organization so selected by the employees in
that group, which the Board in such circumstances finds to be
a separate unit appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining. If a majority of the employees in both voting groups
selects Local 125, they will be taken to have indicated their
desire to constitute a plantwide unit and the Regional Director
conducting the elections is instructed to issue a certification of
representatives to Local 125 as the labor organization selected
by the employees in both groups, which the Board in such cir-
cumstances finds to be a single unit appropriate for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining.
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication]
UNITED SCREW AND BOLT CORPORATION and UAW-AFL
AMALGAMATED LOCAL NO. 286, Petitioner . Cases Nos.
13-RC-3454 and 13-RC-3467. October 27, 1953
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the
National Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held
before Hubert J. Sigal , 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 these cases, the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning
of the Act.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent
certain employees of the Employer.
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 separate units of ( 1) toolroom
employees and (2) millwrights at the Employer's Chicago,
Illinois, plant. The Employer contends that the only appropriate
unit for these employees is either ( 1) a production and main-
tenance unit or (2) a combined unit of toolroom employees
1 At the hearing, the Employer moved to dismiss the petition in Case No. 13-RC- 3467 on
the ground that the Regional Director issued the notice of consolidated hearing herein without
first determining the adequacy of the Petitioner's showing of interest in that case by checking
its evidence thereof against a list of employees furnished by the Employer. This motion is
denied. As we have repeatedly stated, the adequacy of a showing of interest is a question
for administrative determination, not subject to direct or collateral attack. Corning Glass
Works, 93 NLRB 775. Moreover, we are administratively satisfied that, at the time of the
hearing, the Petitioner's showing in Case No. 13-RC-3467 was adequate.
106 NLRB No. 236.