Molina Mills, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 9, 1956

115 N.L.R.B. 1285 (N.L.R.B. 1956)

MOLINA MILLS, INCORPORATED 1285
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of certain employees of the Employer within the meaning of
Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Petitioner seeks to represent in a single unit all the employees
of the two grain elevators, the lumberyard, and the gasoline station.
The Employer contends the Board should establish 3 units of its em-
ployees-1 unit for the 2 grain elevators, 1 for the lumberyard, and
1 for the filling station. In view of the close integration and inter-
dependence of all four of the Employer's installations and the fact that
no other labor organization seeks to represent separately any of the em-
ployees here involved, we find that the following employees constitute
.a unit appropriate for the purpose of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act: All production and maintenance
employees at the Employer's grain elevator, lumberyard, and gasoline
station in Eaton, Colorado, and its grain elevator in Galeton, Colorado,
excluding office clerical employees, guards, and supervisors as defined
in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
MEMBER RODGERS took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Direction of Election.
the Employer cooperative is predominantly engaged in the operation, of grain elevators and
incidently engaged in selling lumber and gasoline products to its members. All of the
Employer's facilities are not only under central management and control but their opera-
tion is directed toward the same end of serving the needs of the Employer's members.
These facts in conjunction with the other commerce data in the record establish the inte-
gration necessary to treat these diverse operations as one entity for jurisdictional purposes.
Molina Mills, Incorporated and Union Trabajadores Industria
de Alfombras, Local 24933, AFL-CIO,' Petitioner. Case No.
24-RC-870. May 9,1956
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
-Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before George L. Weasler,
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 meaning of
the Act.
1 The AFL and CIO having merged since the initiation of this proceeding , we are amend-
ing the designation of the Petitioner,and the Intervenor.
115 NLRB No. 204.
1286 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. The labor organizations involved 'claim to represent - certain
employees of the Employer.
3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9
(c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act for the following
reasons:
The Petitioner seeks to represent a unit of production and main-
tenance employees at the Employer's plant, otherwise known as plant
No. 4. The Employer and the Intervenor, United Packinghouse
Workers of America, AFL-CIO, contend that only a unit comprising
all the production and maintenance employees in the plants of Crea-
tive Textiles, Inc., and of the Employer can be appropriate.
The Employer, Creative Textiles, Inc., and a third corporation
named V'Soski Shops, Inc., are engaged in the manufacture of rugs
at six related plants. Creative Textiles, Inc., operates plants Nos.
1, 2, and 5 at Vega Baja, Puerto Rico, and plant No. 3 at Manati
within 3 miles of plant No. 1; V'Soski Shops, Inc., operates plant No.
6 at Vega Baja; and the Employer operates plant No. 4 at Vega Alta,
about 23 miles from Vega Baja. There is a general interlocking of
corporate officers of the three corporations and a high degree of inte-
gration among the plants.
The offices of all 3 corporations are located at plant No. 1 where all
orders are received, patterns made, and all paperwork pertaining to
the 3 corporations is done. Here the office people are on the various
payrolls of the 3 corporations. One bookkeeper is in charge of all
bookkeeping and the same auditor audits the books of all the corpora-
tions. The plant manager of Creative Textiles, Inc., plants and of
the Employer's plant is in charge of the labor relations of the three
corporations and testified that the same labor policies are effective at
each company.
The employees at all plants have the same working hours and bene-
fits. Although there have been no transfers from plant No. 4, em-
ployees have been transferred, temporarily, from the other plants to
plant No. 4. At such times, it is also necessary to transfer super-
visors, all of whom are carried on the plant No. 4 payroll, and when
the work subsides, they are transferred back to their original plant.
About four employees of plant No. 4 who finish up part of the product
of plant No. 4, actually perform their work at plant No. 5. They are
carried on the payroll of plant No. 4.
Shop orders are sent from plant No. 1 to plant No. 3 where all the
materials are brought together and the design stamped. From plant
No. 3, the rugs go to plant No. 4 for the tufting operation, and then
to plant No. 2 where rubber backing is applied to the rugs and the
shearing and cording operations are performed. The rugs are fin=
ished -at plant No. 5 where they are finally checked, cleaned, and
MOLINA MILLS, INCORPORATED 1287
packed for shipment. The record does not show what operations are
carried on at plant No. 6. There are certain operations which Crea-
tive Textiles, Inc., does for plant No. 4 with its personnel, and for
those operations it is paid by the square foot.
Following a consent election (Case No. 24-RC-620, not reported
in printed volumes of Board Decisions and Orders), the Intervenor
was certified on October 2, 1953, as the bargaining representative of
a production and maintenance unit at Creative Textiles, Inc., plants
Nos. 1, 20, and at the Employer's plant No. 4. Thereafter a contract
was executed covering these employees. Likewise, as a result of a
consent election (Case No. 24-RC-834), the Intervenor was certified
as the bargaining representative of V'Soski Shops, Inc., plant No. 6,
on November 23, 1955. The plant manager testified that the provi-
sions of the contract with the Intervenor have been applied to all
plants. It thus appears that the Employer's plant No. 4 has been
bargained for as part of a larger multiplant unit.
In view of the foregoing, particularly the bargaining history on a
multiplant basis, the integration of plants, the uniformity of wages,
hours, and working conditions, the interchange of employees, and the
centralized managerial control of operations and labor relations, we
find that a• unit limited to the Employer's plant No. 4 is not appro-
priate.
The Petitioner apparently argues, however, that because of certain
recent developments, the Employer's plant No. 4 has become, in effect,
a new plant. In September 1955, the 3 corporations assumed 50 per-
cent of the orders of another corporation known as Floor Coverings,
whose plant had been destroyed by fire. With the assumption of these
orders, many employees who had formerly worked at Floor Coverings
were hired. This hiring increased the complement of employees at
plant No. 4 from approximately 35 to 105, and resulted in the transfer
of some of the original employees of plant No. 4 to plants Nos. 1, 3,
and 5 of Creative Textiles, Inc. At the time of the hearing, plant No.
4 was producing 55 percent of the product of the Floor Covering
Company, and 45 percent of the product was produced at plant No. 1
with the original plant No. 4 employees. The total product from Floor
Coverings orders is commenced in plants Nos. 1 and 5. From there 55
percent of it goes to plant No. 4 for the tufting operation and the re-
maining 45 percent has the tufting operation performed at plant No. 1_
All work is then sent to plant No. 5 for the finishing operation.
The Petitioner was the bargaining representative of the employees at
Floor Coverings, and, in effect, claims that with the assumption of the
orders of Floor Coverings and the resulting restaffing of plant-No. 4
with former employees of Floor Coverings, plant No. 4 amounts to a
separate operation. Although plant No. 4 does appear to be staffed
with former employees of Floor Coverings and to be occupied pri-
1288 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
manly with those orders, we conclude that it has not become a separate
operation devoted to Floor Coverings work, but continues to be op-
=erated by the Employer as an integral part of the multiplant operation.
With the assumption of the Floor Coverings orders, some rearrange-
ment of operations was necessary, but the facts show that the Floor
'Coverings orders have been undertaken by the multiplant operation
and are being carried out through the combined functions of the sev-
^eral plants. As the unit petitioned for is inappropriate, we shall dis-
miss the petition.
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
Mississippi Valley Structural Steel Company and Shopmen's
Local Union No. 518 of the International Association of Bridge,
Structural & Ornamental Iron Workers, AFL-CIO, Petitioner.
Case No. 14-RC-2925. May 9,1956
DECISION AND DIRECTION
Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election
entered into by the parties January 5, 1956, an election by secret ballot
was conducted on January 18, 1956, among the employees at the Em-
ployer's St. Louis, Missouri, plant under the direction and super-
vision of the Regional Director for the Fourteenth Region. At the
conclusion of the election, the parties were furnished with a tally of
ballots which shows that, of approximately 129 eligible voters, 125
cast ballots, of which 59 were cast for, and 59 against, the Petitioner,
and 7 were challenged.
As the challenged ballots were sufficient in number to affect the
results of the election, the Regional Director conducted an investi-
gation of the challenged ballots and thereafter, on March 28, 1956,
issued and served upon the parties his report in which he recom-
mended to the Board that the challenges to the ballots of Kitson,
Adkins, Forester, and Ross be sustained and that the challenges to the
ballots of Cole, Cochren, and Morice be overruled. On April 6,
1956, the Employer filed its exceptions to the report and the Petitioner
filed its exceptions on April 9.
Upon the entire record in this case; the Board makes the following
findings :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent employees of
the Employer.
115 NLRB No. 205.