McCarty Manufacturing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 26, 1944

59 N.L.R.B. 1244 (N.L.R.B. 1944)

In the Matter Of JUSTIN S. MCCARTY, JR., NOLAN MCGOUGII AND
GERTRIIDD REED , D/B/A MCCARTY MANUFACTURING COMPANY and
DALLAS JOINT BOARD, INTERNATIONAL LADIES ' GARMENT WORKERS
UNION, AFL
Case No. 16-B-1053.-Decided December 26, 1944
Messrs. Pat Coon and Robert L. Clark, of Dallas, Tex., for the
Company.
Mr. Jack Johannes, Miss Charlotte Duncan, both of Dallas, Tex.,
and Miss Wave Tobin, of Kansas City, Mo., for the Union.
Mr. A. Sumner Lawrence, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon amended petition duly filed by Dallas Joint Board, Interna-
tional Ladies' Garment Workers Union, AFL, herein called the Union,
alleging that a question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the
representation of employees of Justin S. McCarty, Jr., Nolan Mc-
Gough, and Gertrude Reed, copartners, doing business as McCarty
Manufacturing Company, Dallas, Texas, herein called the Company,"
the National Labor Relations Board provided for an appropriate
hearing upon due notice before Lewis Moore, Trial Examiner. Said
hearing was held at Dallas, Texas, on October 20 and 21, 1944. The
Company and the Union appeared, participated and were afforded
full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses,
and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues. 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. Subsequent to the hearing, the Board issued a notice
that, unless the Union should present to the Regional Director of the
Sixteenth Region, evidence of representation in the Company's plant,
hereinafter referred to as Plant No. 2, the Board would consider dis-
i The name of the Company was corrected at the hearing by an amendment to the peti-
tion setting forth the partnership interest of Gertrude Reed in the Company.
59 N. L. R. B., No. 225.
1244
McCARTY MANUFACTURING COMPANY 1245
missing the petition as seeking an inappropriate unit. The Union
thereafter filed a motion for reconsideration in which it requested
oral argument. The Company filed a motion to strike the Union's
motion for reconsideration and to dismiss the petition. The motion
of the Union is denied and that of the Company is granted for reasons
hereinafter stated.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following: -
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
McCarty Manufacturing Company is a partnership, having its prin-
cipal place of business in Dallas, Texas, and engaged solely in the
manufacture of ladies'-garments on the order and for the account of a
single customer , Justin McCarty, Inc., Dallas, Texas, hereinafter re-
ferred to as the Corporation. The Company does not buy, sell, or
cause the shipment of goods in interstate commerce. It does, how-
ever, process substantial quantities of raw materials estimated over a
-period of 6 months to exceed $250,000 in value, which materials are
purchased by the Corporation in interstate commerce and delivered to
the Company for the purpose of being manufactured into finished
products and thereafter sold by the Corporation. While the latter,
which admittedly is engaged in interstate commerce, sells the products
of the Company in both local and interstate commerce, its annual ship-
ments of such products to points outside the State of Texas exceed
$50,000 in value.
We find, contrary to the contention of the Company, that it is en-
gaged in activities affecting commerce within the meaning of the Act.2
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Dallas Joint Board, International Ladies' Garment Workers Union,
affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, is a labor organiza-
tion admitting to membership employees of the Company.
IH. THE ALLEGED APPROPRIATE UNIT
The Union contends that all operators, finishers, pressers, cutters,
spreaders, special machine operators, inspectors, and bundle girls, ex-
clusive of office and supervisory employees, floor ladies, maintenance
employees, shipping room employees, designers, and stock boy in
Plant No. 3 only, constitute a single appropriate unit. The Com-
pany, while not opposing the classifications requested, contends that
9 See N. L. R. B. V. Fainblatt et al , 306 U . S. 601; N. L. R. B. v. Bradford Dyeing Asso-
ciation, 310 U. S. 318.
1246 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
4he unit should include the employees of Plant No. 2 as well as those
of Plant No. 3. The.Union maintains'that its position is supported
by a difference in the products of the two plants and also by the extent
of organization among-the employees of the Company.
The record discloses that the Company operates two plants, known
as Plant No. 2 and Plant No. 3, located on the 9th. and 7th floors, re-
'spectively., of the same building and closely integrated under the' im-
mediate supervision of a superintendent who divides his time equally
between the two plants.3 While the Company is at present operating
one plant for the manufacture of coats and suits and the other plant
for the manufacture of garments known as "sportswear," both plants
are equipped to manufacture either type of garment. The Company
-expects that, in the event of a slack season, it will manufacture in
Plant No. 3 the same garments that are now manufactured in Plant
.No. 2 4 In addition thereto, it is clear that, while the employees in the
proposed single plant unit are identifiable upon the pay roll of the
Company, all such employees bear the same work classifications as
those in the other plant; that the employees in the two plants have been
frequently interchanged; and that in both plants the employees op-
erate similar machinery -and enjoy the same wage rates and other
working conditions.
So far as the ektent of organization among the Company's employees
is concerned, the evidence reveals that the Union began its present
campaign to organize the Company's employees about August 21, 1944;
and that on September 18, 1944, when the Union filed its petition, the
Union had authorizations from a majority of the 50 employees in the
plant claimed as the basis of the appropriate unit. There is nothing
in the record to indicate that the Union has experienced any opposition
in its organizing activities among the employees of the Company."
The Union has been organizing concurrently the employees in both
plants and stated at the hearing that it was continuing its organization
of the employees in the plant not claimed in the present petition.°
i
8 The complete authority of the superintendent with respect to hiring and discharging
of employees leaves little independent authority to the foremen in the individual plants
' The Company stated at the hearing that if it could find a floor large enough it would
put all its operations on one floor The evidence indicates that the separation of the two
plants is clue to the fact that they were acquired by the Company on various occasions
from different parties, rather than to any planned arrangement from the point of view of
company organization.
8 There is no evidence that the Company has opposed the activities of the Union or that
the employees in the other plant have definitely indicated a lack of interest in collective
bargaining.
9 While the Union declined at the hearing to estimate the number or the proportion of
the employees already organized in the second plant , a witness for the Union testified that
so far as being ready for an election is concerned , the Union was not afraid of an election
in such plant . However , although the Union , subsequent to the hearing, filed with the
Regional Director an affidavit to the effect that it had 11 authorizations from approxi-
mately 80 employees in the Companyts Plant No . 2, it submitted no authorization cards to
the Regional Director for his inspection in response to the order of notice referred to above.
McCARTY MANUFACTURING COMPANY 1247
In view of the integration of the Company's operations, the similar-
ity of the duties and working conditions and particularly the inchoate
state of organization,' we find that the unit proposed by the Union is
inappropriate. We•shall, therefore, dismiss the petition herein.
IV. THE ALLEGED QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
Since the bargaining unit sought to be established by the petition is
not appropriate as found in Section III, above, we find that no ques-
tion has arisen concerning representation of employees of the Company
within the meaning of Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations
Act.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for investigation and certifica-
tion of representatives of employee's-of Justin S. McCarty, Nolan Mc-
Gough and Gertrude Reed, doing business as McCarty Manufacturing
Company, Dallas, Texas, filed herein by Dallas Joint Board, Inter-
national Ladies' Garment Workers Union, AFL, be, and it hereby is,
dismissed.
MR. GERARD D. REILLY took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Order. ,
' See Matter of Newnan Cotton Mills , 57 N. L. R B. 917; Matter of Public Service Electric
f& Gas Company, 59 N. L . R. B. 51.
618683-45-vol. 59-80