Max Pollack & Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 6, 1942

38 N.L.R.B. 966 (N.L.R.B. 1942)

In the Matter Of MAX POLLACK & COMPANY, INC. and TEXTILE WORKERS
UNION OF AMERICA (C. I. 0.)
Case No. R-3428.-Decided February 6,194
Jurisdiction : sewing thread manufacturing industry.
Investigation and Certification of Representatives : existence of question: re-
fusal to accord union recognition until certified by the Board ; election
necessary.
Unit appropriate for Collective Bargaining : unit comprising production and
maintenance employees exclusive of executives, supervisors, and clerks, at
one of the Company's two plants held appropriate.
Mr. Maa G. Johl, of Suffield, Conn., for the Company.
Mr. Bruno Rantane, of Hartford, Conn., for the Union.
Mr. A. Sumner Lawrence, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On November 3, 1941, Textile Workers Union of America, (C. I. O.),
herein called the Union, filed, with the Regional Director for the First
Region (Boston, Massachusetts) a petition alleging that a question
affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation of em-
ployees of Max Pollack & Company, Inc., Conantville, Connecticut,
herein called the Company, and requesting an investigation and cer-
tification of representatives pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. On Decem-
ber 27, 1941, 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 2, as amended, ordered an investigation and authorized the
Regional Director to conduct it and to provide for an appropriate
hearing upon due notice.
On December 30, 1941, the Regional Director issued a notice of
hearing, copies of which were duly' served upon the Company and the
Union. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held on January 8, 1942,
38 N. L. R. B., No. 174.
966
MAX POLLACK & COMPANY, INC. 967
at Willimantic, Connecticut, before Robert E. Greene, the Trial
Examiner duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner., The Com-
pany and the Union appeared by their representatives and partici-
pated 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. During the hearing the Trial Exam-
iner made rulings on the admission of evidence. The Board has re-
viewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner 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
Max Pollack & Company, Inc., a New York corporation having
two plants, one at Willimantic, Connecticut, and one at Groton,
Connecticut, is engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribution
of sewing thread.
During the calendar year 1940 and the first 6 months of 1941 the
Company purchased for use at its Willimantic plant raw materials
consisting of thread yarns, dyestuffs, and chemicals of the total value
of approximately $525,000 and $493,000, respectively, of which over
95 percent was secured from sources outside of the State of Con-
necticut. During the same periods, the Company purchased for use
at its Groton plant sundry materials valued at $39,724.39 and
$33,422.47, respectively, of which approximately 80 percent was
shipped to it from sources outside the State of Connecticut. During
each of these periods the Company shipped from its Groton plant
finished products valued at approximately one million dollars, 95
percent of which was shipped to points outside the State of Con-
necticut. The Company employs about 266 employees, of whom
about 42 work at the Willimantic plant.
The Company admits that it is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Textile Workers Union of America is a labor organization affiliated
with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, admitting to member-
ship employees of the Company.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
On or about October 23, 1941, the Union requested that the Com-
pany bargain with it as the exclusive representative of certain of the
968 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Company's employees. The Company refused to recognize the
Union until it had been certified by the Board as bargaining agent.
From a report prepared by the Regional Director and submitted
in evidence at the hearing, it appears that the Union represents a
substantial number of the Company's employees at the Willimantic
plant.'
We find that a question has arisen concerning the representation
of the 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 commerce
and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The Company has two plants, one at Willimantic, Connecticut,
and one at Groton, Connecticut. The Union claims that the produc-
tion and maintenance employees in the Willimantic plant, excluding
executives, supervisors, and clerks, constitute a unit appropriate for
the purposes of collective bargaining. The Company claims that the
appropriate bargaining unit should embrace all the employees in
both plants with the exception of executives and supervisors.
At the Willimantic plant the Company processes and dyes thread
yarns which are then sent to the Groton plant for finishing. Prior
to the establishment of the Company's headquarters at Groton in
1920, the Willimantic plant was the entire plant of the Company.
There is little similarity between the work done at Willimantic
and the work done at Groton, and there is no extensive interchange
of employees between the two plants, which are separated by ^, dis-
tance of 33 miles. The employees of the Willimantic plant live in
Willimantic and the employees of the Groton plant live in Groton.
While business and labor policies for both plants are determined by
the Company's executives at Groton, the local management at the
Willimantic plant has complete authority to hire and discharge em-
'The Regional Director reported that the Union had presented 45 authorization cards
of which 2 were undated , 3 dated November 1941, and 40 dated October 1941 The
Regional Director further reported that of the 45 signatures , 40 are the names of persons
on the Company 's pay roll of November 29, 1941 , for the plant at Willimantic , Connecticut,
and that said pay roll contains a total of approximately 42 names in the alleged appro-
priate unit.
MAX POLLACK & COMPANY, INC. 969
ployees, as well as the right to make mass lay-offs. The local man-
management at Willimantic also has general authority to handle
complaints and grievances except those relating to wages and finan-
cial matters in general. The Company has never had a collective
bargaining agreement with any labor organization. It appears that
the Union's membership among employees of the Company is con-
fined to employees of the Willimantic plant, although the Union has
attempted to interest Groton employees by circulating leaflets.
We are of the opinion that, although a two-plant unit would not
be inappropriate if organization had extended to both plants, the
state of the employee's self-organization indicates the present pro-
priety of a unit limited to employees at the Willimantic plant.2 We
find, therefore, that the production and maintenance employees of the
Company at the plant located at Willimantic, Connecticut, but ex-
cluding executives, supervisors, and clerks, constitute a unit appropri-
ate for the purposes of collective bargaining. We further find that
such unit will insure to employees of the Company the full benefit
of their right to self-organization and to collective bargaining and
otherwise will effectuate the policies of the Act.
VI. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
We find that the question which has arisen concerning the repre-
sentation of employees of the Company can best be resolved by an
election by secret ballot. We shall direct that those eligible to vote in
the election shall be those employees within the appropriate unit
who were employed by the Company during the pay-roll period im-
mediately preceding the date of the Direction of Election, subject to
such limitations and additions as are set forth in the Direction.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire
record in the case, the Board makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. A question affecting commerce has arisen concerning the repre-
sentation of employees of Max Pollack & Company, Inc., within the
meaning of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National
Labor Relations Act.
2. The production and maintenance employees of the Company
at the plant located at Willimantic, Connecticut, but excluding
executives, supervisors, and clerks, constitute a unit appropriate for
the purposes of collective bargaining, within the meaning of Section
9 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act.
'Matter of Brown Paper Goods Co and United Paper Novelty & Toy Workers Inter-
national Union, Local 148 (C I. 0 ), 34 N. L R B., No. 93.
970 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
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 8, of National Labor
Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 2, as amended, it is
hereby
DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation ordered by the Board
to ascertain representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining
with Max Pollack & Company , Inc., Conantville , Connecticut, an
election by secret ballot shall be conducted as early as possible but
not later than thirty ( 30) days from the date of this Direction, under
the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the First
Region, acting in this matter as agent for the National Labor Rela-
tions Board and subject to Article III, Section 9, of said Rules and
Regulations , among the production and maintenance employees in
the Willimantic plant who were employed by the company during
the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of this Direction
of Election , including those who did not work during the pay-roll
period because they were ill or on vacation or in the active military
service or training of the United States, or temporarily laid off, but
excluding executives , supervisors , and clerks and those who have since
quit or been discharged for cause , to determine whether or not they
desire to be represented for the purposes of collective bargaining by
Textile Workers Union of America , affiliated with the C. I. O.