Mr. John, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsJul 24, 1953

106 N.L.R.B. 388 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

388 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD free choice in the election. We shall set the election aside. 10 ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the election of June 2, 3, 4, and 5, 1952, among the Employer's employees, be, and it hereby is, set aside. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this proceeding be re- manded to the Regional Director for the Region in which this case was heard , for the purpose of conducting a new election at such time as he deems the circumstances permita free choice as to collective -bargaining representation. loSpengler -Loomis Mfg, Co., 95 NLRB 243; Le Rol Company, 101 NLRB 55; Beaver Machine & Tool Co.. Inc., 101 NLRB 1782. The Employer also claims that the Petitioner waived its right to object to the notices of May 22 and 26, 1952, because it knew of them before the election and yet participated in it without raising any question as to these notices. It relies largely on Denton Sleeping Garment Mills, Inc., 93 NLRB 329. As noted by the hearing officer, however, this case has since been overruled by the Board on this particular point in The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, 101 NLRB 1118. The hearing officer's finding that there is no merit in this contention is affirmed. MR. JOHN, INC. and MILLINERY BLOCKERS UNION, LOCAL 42, UNITED HATTERS, CAP AND MILLINERY WORKERS, INTERNATIONAL UNION, AFL, Petitioner . Case No. 2-RC-5765. July 24, 1953 DECISION AND ORDER Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Leonard J. Lurie, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. i Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Members Houston, Styles, and Peterson] . 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 organization involved claims to represent certain employees of the Employer. 3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the representation of employees of the Employer within the mean- 'On June 15 , 1953, the Employer filed with the Board a motion to strike testa pony admitted by the hearing officer at the hearing relating to statements made by the Employer's general manager at the informal conference. In view of our determination in paragraph 3, we do not pass on this motion. 106 NLRB No. 71. MR. JOHN, INC. 389 ing 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 limited to the blocking employees employed at the Employer's New York plant, contending that they constitute a separate appropriate unit either as (1) highly skilled employees with work and interests different from other production employees; or as (2) craft employees entitled to representation in a craft unit. The Employer argues that because of its integrated and unique operations only a unit composed of all production employees is appropriate. There is no history of collective bargaining at the Employer's establishment. The record shows that the Employer is engaged in the production of creative custom-made hats. In its production department located on the third floor of its plant, there are 39 employees, 5 of whom are engaged in the blocking of the hats. The milliners, copyists, and blockmakers comprise the remaining production employees. The production process begins in the stockroom where the basic material to be used in the hat is cut and initially prepared. A supervisor then decides whether the hat is to be draped or blocked. If draped, the material is sent directly to the milliners and copyists. If the hat is to be blocked, the material goes to the blockers. The blocking operation consists basically of steaming or wetting the material until it become soft and pliable, and then stretch- ing and pulling it onto a wooden foundation called a block, which is carved in the desired hat shape. An average blocker can process 7 to 10 hats each day, producing enough work for 4 or 5 milliners. Although the blockers have had a minimum of 1 year's experience prior to their employment with the Employer, usually acquired in a millinery shop,' there is no evidence that their training follows any formal program with a prescribed course of study leading through an orderly progression to journeyman status. Often this experience is gained in conjunction with learning other production duties in the shop. Nor does the record indicate that a special community of interest distinguishes the blockers from other production em- ployees. They are under the same supervision as the mil- liners, copyists, and blockmaker, I work in close proximity with them, and receive the same vacation and holiday benefits. Moreover, the Board has in the past rejected craft contentions with respect to blockers and related production employees in the hat industry. 4 2 This Employer has no program for training blockers. 3 The Petitioner contends that Blocker William West is a supervisor within the meaning of the Act. The record shows, however, that West does not have authority to hire or discharge other blocking employees, and that he spends his working day alongside them performing the same type work. We find, therefore, that West is not a supervisor within the meaning of the Act. Queen City Furniture Company, Inc., 87 NLRB 634. 4See Mutual Rough Hat Company, 86 NLRB 440. 39 0 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD On the basis of the entire record in this case , including the nature of the Employer ' s operations , the lack of separate supervision , and the absence of any recognized craft status on the part of the blockers , we are of the opinion that the interests of these employees are not sufficiently severable and distinct from those of the other production employees to warrant establishing them in a separate unit. 5 Accordingly, we shall dismiss the petition. [The Board dismissed the petition.] 5 The Board has consistently refused to find appropriate for collective -bargaining purposes a unit composed of a portion of production employees who are not craftsmen . See Mutual Rough Hat Company, supra. KENNECOTT COPPER CORPORATION, RAY MINES DIVI- SION and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, Petitioner KENNECOTT COPPER CORPORATION, RAY MINES DIVI- SION and BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE FIREMEN & ENGINEMEN , Petitioner KENNECOTT COPPER CORPORATION, RAY MINES DIVI- SION and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF BOILER- MAKERS, IRON SHIP BUILDERS, BLACKSMITHS , FORGERS AND HELPERS , LODGE No. 627, Petitioner . Cases Nos. Zl-RC-3014 , 21-RC-3015 , 21-RC-3025,21-RC-3026 , 21-RC- 3027, 21-RC-3030, 21-RC -3031, 21-RC-3032 , 21-RC-3033, 21-RC - 3052 , 21-RC-3059 , and 21-RC-3067 . July 24, 1953 DECISION, ORDER, 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 Norman H. Greer, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with these cases to a three-member panel [Mem- bers Houston, Murdock, and Styles]. Upon the entire record of these cases, 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. Questions affecting commerce exist concerning the repre- sentation of certain employees of the Employer within the mean- ing of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 106 NLRB No. 72.