Model Blouse Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 30, 1938

8 N.L.R.B. 725 (N.L.R.B. 1938)

In the Matter Of MODEL BLOUSE Co., ELIAS SAVADA, INDIVIDUALLY AND
DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE FIRM NAME AND STYLE OF MODEL BLOUSE
Co., ALSO DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE FIRM NAME AND STYLE OF SAVADA
BROTHERS and FEDERAL LABOR UNION No. 21,560 (A. F. OF L.).
Case No. R-814.-Decided July 30, 1938
Men's Garment Manufacturing Industry-Investtgati on of Representatives:
controversy concerning representation of employees : controversy concerning
appropriate unit ; employer 's refusal to grant recognition of union-Unit Appro-
priate for Collective Bargaining: production employees , excluding foremen, fore-
ladies and other supervisory employees , janitors , packers, truck drivers, me-
chanics, and office help , and including inspectors ; inspectors included in unit,
since they exercise no supervisory powers, are paid less than the average em-
ployee, and are frequently transferred to work as operators-Election Ordered.
Mr. Jerome I. Macht, for the Board.
Mr. Max J. Leibowitz, of New York City, for the Company.
Benjamin R. Simons and M. Herbert Syme, by Mr. Benjamin R.
Simons and Mr. Maurice Abrams, of Philadelphia, Pa., for the
Union.
Mr. David Rein, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On April 21, 1938, Federal Labor Union No. 21,560, affiliated with
the American Federation of Labor, herein called the Union, filed
with the Regional Director for the Fourth Region (Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania) a petition alleging that a question affecting commerce
had arisen concerning the representation of employees of Model
Blouse Co., Millville, New Jersey, herein called the Company, and
requesting an investigation and certification of representatives pur-
suant to Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat.
449, herein called the Act. On May 10, 1938, 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 Rela-
tions Board Rules and Regulations-Series 1. as amended, ordered an
investigation and authorized the Regional Director to conduct it and
to provide for an appropriate hearing upon due notice.
8 N. L. R. B., No. 79.
725
726 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS. BOARD
On May 12, 1938, the Regional Director issued a notice of hearing,
copies of which were duly served upon the Company and the Union.
Pursuant to the notice, a hearing was held on May 19, 20, 21, and
23, at Millville, New Jersey, before Harold Stein, the Trial Examiner
duly designated by the Board. The Board, the Company and the Union
were represented, by- counsel and par=ticipated in the hearing. Full
opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and
to introduce evidence- bearing--on the issues was afforded a•11• parties.
During the course of the hearing, the Trial Examiner made several
rulings on motions and objections to the admission of evidence. The
Board has reviewed these rulings and finds that no prejudicial errors
were committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed.
After the close of the hearing, the Company filed a brief to which
the Board has given due consideration.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
The Company is wholly owned by Elias Savada. It maintains its
principal office in New York City under the name of Savada Brothers.
Plants in various States are operated under different names and styles.
The plant in Millville, New Jersey, which is the only one involved in
the present proceeding, is operated under the name and style of
Model Blouse Co., and is engaged in the manufacture of blouses,
shirts, pajamas, and underwear. All the raw materials for the manu-
facture of these goods are shipped to Millville, New Jersey, from
New York City and all the finished products are shipped back to
New York City to be sold and distributed. The Company employs
approximately 460 persons.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Federal Labor Union No. 21,560 is a labor organization affiliated
with the American Federation of Labor, admitting to its membership
employees of the Company.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
On April 20, 1938, the Union by letter requested the manager of
the Company to meet with a committee of the Union as the repre-
sentative of the employees of the Company for the purposes of collec-
tive bargaining. The Company never replied to this letter and at the
hearing denied that the Union represented a majority of its employees.
We find that a question has arisen concerning the representation
of employees of the Company.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 727
IV. TIIE 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
It was agreed by the Union and the Company that an appropriate
bargaining unit should include all of the production employees of
the Company, excluding foremen, foreladies, and other supervisory
employees, janitors, packers, truck drivers, mechanics, and office help.
There was some controversy as to whether or not some 60 inspectors
should be considered supervisory employees. The evidence shows,
however, that although they occasionally returned work as unsatisfac-
tory, they exercised no supervisory powers over the other employees.
They were paid less than the average employee and were frequently
transferred from their duties as inspectors to work as operators.
Accordingly, they will be included in the appropriate unit.
We find that all production employees of the Company at its plant
in Millville, New Jersey, excluding foremen, foreladies and other
supervisory employees, janitors, packers, truck drivers, mechanics,
and office help, and including inspectors, constitute a unit appropriate
for the purposes of collective bargaining and that such unit will in-
sure to the employees of the Company the full benefit of their right to
self-organization and to collective bargaining and otherwise effectuate
the policies of the Act.
VI. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
According to the Company's pay roll for the week ending April
22, 1938, which was introduced into evidence at the hearing, there
were,453.employees in the appropriate unit on that date.' The Union
introduced in evidence 243 cards signed by employees designating the
Union as their collective bargaining representative. The signatures
on 129 of these cards were identified either by the employees who had
signed the cards or by an official of the Union who had witnessed the
signatures. Seventeen of the two hundred and forty-three cards were
challenged individually as having been signed in the same handwriting
as some other card or because of some other defect. The Trial Ex-
aminer sustained the challenges as to four of these cards, but overruled
them as to the remainder.
1 The pay roll actually contained 460 names in the appropriate unit but the Company
official who identified the pay roll testified that seven of the employees had quit before the
elate of the pay roll.
728 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
In the presentation of its case, the Company introduced in evidence
a petition signed by employees of the Company, which stated that
the signatories to the petition did not wish to be represented by the
Union or any other union. This petition contained 229 names, 4 of
which were names of persons not included in the appropriate unit.
Forty-seven of the names on the petition duplicated the names of
employees who had signed cards. designating the Union as their
bargaining representative.
The employees who identified the petition for the Company testified
that they had circulated the petition in the plant of their own initia-
tive and that Company officials had played no part in.its circulation.
Their testimony on this point, however, was vague and indefinite.
They were unable to relate with any degree of particularity the cir-
cumstances of its origin and circulation. One of the witnesses could
say little more than that he had received the petition from some un-
known person, had circulated it throughout his department, and had
then returned it to another unknown person.
Evidence of this kind suggests that the signatures to this petition
may have been obtained with the Company's assistance, but in the'
absence of more positive evidence to that effect, doubt is cast upon
the majority status of the Union by the signatures on the petition
introduced by the Company. Under these circumstances, we do not
believe that we should certify the Union as the exclusive representa-
tive of the employees in the appropriate unit without holding an
election. Accordingly, we find that the question, which has arisen
concerning representation can best be resolved by the holding of an
election by secret ballot.
In accordance with our usual practice, we find that the employees
whose names appear on the pay-roll list of April 22, 1938 (the pay-
roll date nearest to the date of the filing of the petition), excluding
those who had quit before that date 2 ' and those who have since quit
or been discharged for cause, shall be eligible to vote in the election.
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 Model Blouse Co., Millville, New Jersey,
within the meaning of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the
National Labor Relations Act. '
2. All production employees of the Company, excluding foremen,
foreladies and other supervisory employees, janitors, packers, truck
'These seven are C Robinson, A. Storms, M Eichelberger, D. Foster, H. Chiarello, M.
Maines, and Lillian Johnson.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 729
drivers, mechanics and office help , and including inspectors , consti-
tute a unit appropriate for the purpose of collective bargaining within
the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act.
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 1, as amended, it is
hereby
DIRECTED that , as part of the investigation authorized by the Board
to ascertain representatives for collective bargaining with Model
Blouse Co., Millville, New Jersey, an election by secret ballot shall
be conducted within fifteen ( 15) days from the date of this Direction,
under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the
Fourth Region, acting in this'matter as agent for the National Labor
Relations Board and subject to Article III, Section 9, of said Rules
and Regulations , among all production employees , excluding foremen,
foreladies and other supervisory employees , janitors, packers; truck
drivers, mechanics and office help , and including inspectors , - whose
names appear upon the Company pay roll for the pay-roll period end-
ing April 22, 1938, except those who had quit before that dates and
those who have since quit or been discharged for cause, to determine
whether or not they desire to be 'represented by Federal Labor Union
No. 21,560 for the purposes of collective bargaining.
[SAME TITLE]
AMENDMENT TO DIRECTION OF ELECTION
August 13, 1938
On July 30 , 1938, the National Labor Relations Board, herein
called the Board, issued a Decision and Direction of Election in the
above-entitled proceeding . The Direction of Election provided that
"an election by secret ballot shall be conducted within fifteen (15)
days from the date of this Direction , under the direction and super-
vision of the Regional Director for the Fourth Region ." On August
9, Federal Labor Union No. 21,560 (A. F. of L.) filed a "motion to
reopen hearing for further consideration. " The Board will postpone
the election pending decision on this motion.
The Board hereby amends its Direction of Election by striking
out the words "within fifteen (15) days from the date of this Direc-
tion" and substituting therefor the words "at such time as the Board
may in the future direct."
s See names listed in footnote 2.
8 N L R B., No. 79a.