Newburgh Mfg. Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 17, 1965

151 N.L.R.B. 763 (N.L.R.B. 1965)

NEWBURGH MFG. Co. INC. 763
has expressed his desire to retain them in the work. The assignment
to lathers conforms to Papineau's past practice, is consistent with
that Employer's contract with the Lathers, and is further established
by their traditional performance of the work. We therefore con-
clude that Papineau's assignment of the work to its lathers should
not be disturbed. Accordingly, we shall determine the existing juris-
dictional dispute by deciding that the lathers rather than the car-
penters are entitled to the work. In making this determination, we
are assigning the disputed work to the employees of Papineau who
are represented by the Lathers, but not to the Union or its members.
DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings and the entire record in
this proceeding, the Board makes the following Determination of
Dispute pursuant to Section 10 (k) of the Act :
1. Employees employed as lathers by Orville A. Papineau Spe-
cialty Company, a subcontractor for J. L. Williams & Co., Inc., cur-
rently represented by Wood, Wire & Metal Lathers International
Union, AFL-CIO, are entitled to perform the work of hanging ceil-
ing grids for the construction of the Olin-Mathieson plant at Kan-
kakee, Illinois, to include securing of hangers, main T's, and cross-
T's, and the attachment of metal molding which substitutes for cross-T's
around the perimeter of the space.
2. Local No. 496, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners
of America, AFL-CIO, is not and has not been entitled, by means
proscribed by Section 8(b) (4) (D) of the Act, to force or require
Employer Orville A. Papineau Specialty Company or J. L. Williams
& Co., Inc., to assign the above work to carpenters.
3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision and Determina-
tion of Dispute, Local No. 496, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and
Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, shall notify the Regional Director
for Region 13, in writing, whether it will or will not refrain from
forcing or requiring the Employers, by means proscribed by Section
8(b) (4) (D), to assign the work in dispute to carpenters rather
than lathers.
Newburgh Mfg. Co. Inc.' and Local 156, International Ladies' Gar-
ment Workers Union , AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 2-RC-
13690. March 17, 1965
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended, a hearing was held before -fearing
' The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing.
151 NLRB No. 88.
764 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Officer Bertram T. Kupsinel. The Hearing Officer's rulings made
at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Thereafter, the Employer and the Petitioner filed briefs with the
National Labor Relations Board.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain
employees 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 Employer manufactures ladies' washdresses at its plant in
Newburgh, New York. Markers for the dresses are prepared from
patterns elsewhere and are sent to the Newburgh plant where they are
used in cutting out the piece goods from which the dresses are sewn.
After the piece goods are cut, assorted, ticketed, and bundled, they
are ready to be sewed, pressed, and otherwise prepared for shipment.
About 80 percent of the piece goods cut at the plant are immediately
shipped to garment contractors to be sewed at other premises while
the remainder are completed at this plant. There are approximately
125 employees at the plant, of whom about 12 are regular full-time
employees of the cutting department. There is no history of collec-
tive bargaining for employees at the plant.
The Petitioner's primary request is for a unit consisting of the
12 full-time employees in the cutting department. As alternatives,
it would be willing to represent a unit limited to the full-time cutters
and spreaders, 7 in number, or a unit which includes, in addition to
the 12 full-time employees in the cutting department, an additional
5 employees who regularly perform some services in the department.
The Employer contends that all of the proposed units are inappro-
priate because none of the employees in the cutting department pos-
sesses the traditional skills of the cutting craft and because there is
substantial interchange of employees in other departments with those
in the cutting department.
The 12 full-time cutting department employees perform the fol-
lowing functions : The 2 material handlers receive and thereafter
examine the piece goods for color consistency; the 3 spreaders use a
machine to lay out the material in layers on long tables preparatory
to cutting; the 4 cutters use electric knives, following the guidelines
on the markers which are laid out on the material; an assorter assorts
the cut pieces; a ticketer prepares identifying tickets; and a bundler
ties up the assorted pieces. Five other employees perform services
in the cutting department more or less regularly, although formally
assigned elsewhere; namely, a spreader, three women who assist the
NEWBURGH MFG. CO. INC. 765
spreaders by making pin-lays, that is, matching up striped or plaid
patterns as the material is spread in layers on the cutting table, and
a substitute for the assorter and the ticketer. Other women are
called into the cutting department irregularly to assist in making
pin-lays.
The cutting department is located in an enclosed area which is
separated from the rest of the plant by partitions. All the full-time
cutting-department employees are hourly rated and share in a de-
partmental bonus based on their production. Of the part-time em-
ployees in the department, only one, the substitute assorter-ticketer,
participates in the bonus because she had previously worked full time
in the department and had been transferred out for the Employer's
convenience. The cutting department has its own supervisor. None
of the full-time employees in the department is regularly assigned to
work in other departments. The cutters, spreaders, material han-
dlers, and the bundler are male, while of the more than 100 remain-
ing employees at the plant all but 2 or 3 are female.
In Benjamin ct Johns, Inc., 133 NLRB 768, our last published
decision involving cutters, we found that (1) the cutters and spread-
ers were craft employees who performed the highly skilled function
of "preparation of markers" or "marking," and could be represented
separately in a craft unit, and (2) they could also be represented
together with other employees as an appropriate departmental unit.
As we noted in that case, cutting department employees in the gar-
ment industry have traditionally been organized on a departmental
basis, and the Board has recognized their separate interests as en-
titling them to separate representation. The import of the Benjamin
c Johnes decision is, therefore, that cutters and spreaders who are
skilled craftsmen may be separately represented as a craft unit, while
cutters and spreaders, without regard to whether they exercise the
full gamut of craft skills, may nevertheless constitute the nucleus for
a departmental unit entitled to separate representation, where the
proper standards for representation on such a basis have been met .2
We find that a cutting department unit is appropriate here. All
the full-time employees in the department work under separate super-
vision on various aspects of one integral function, that of receiving,
checking, cutting, and preparing piece goods for the quite different
sewing and pressing operations. The homogeneity of a cutting de-
partment unit is further shown here by the sharing in a departmental
bonus, the physical separation from other departments, and the dif-
ference in skills between cutting and sewing operations.
There remains for consideration the question of which of the part-
time employees who work in the cutting department have so sub-
2 D'Armigene, Inc., Case No. 2-RM-1298 (January 20, 1964).
766 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
stantial an interest with respect to working conditions and remunera-
tion therein as to justify their inclusion. Of the five employees who,
at the time of the hearing, regularly worked part time in the
department, two, Sclafani and McPhail, spent 60 and 70 percent
respectively of their time in the cutting department, more than twice
as much time as did any of the other three part-time employees.
Sclafani is the only part-time spreader in the department, and
McPhail does assorting and ticketing in addition to helping with
pin-lays. We find that of the regular part-time employees in the
cutting department, only these two share with the full-time employ-
ees a substantial interest in the terms and conditions of employment
within the department .3 We shall, therefore, exclude from the unit
the three employees, Boykin, Beaman, and Durkee, who share to a
much lesser extent in the work of the cutting department and have
correspondingly less concern over its terms and conditions of em-
ployment. We shall also exclude from the unit the 10 or so unidenti-
fied women who assist in making pin-lays in the department on
an irregular basis.4
Accordingly, we find that the following employees of the Em-
ployer at its Newburgh, New York, plant constitute a unit appro-
priate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning
of Section 9(b) of the Act:
All cutting department employees, including those who regularly
spend substantial time in cutting department work, and excluding
all other employees and supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
8 Berea Publishing Company, 140 NLRB 516.
4 Evans-Picone, Inc., Case No. 22-RC-2176 (October 31, 1963).
Horizon House 1, Inc., ' Horizon House 2, Inc., Horizon House 4,
Inc. and Local 68, International Union of Operating Engineers,
AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 22-RC-2670. March 17, 1965
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended, a hearing was held before Hearing
Officer Christopher J. Hoey. The Hearing Officer's rulings are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Thereafter, the Em-
ployer and the Intervenor filed biefs.
1 The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing.
151 NLRB No. 96.