Ramsay Mills, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 10, 1946

70 N.L.R.B. 1283 (N.L.R.B. 1946)

In the Matter of RAMSAY MILLS, INC., EMPLOYER and NEw BEDFORD
Loom FIXERS UNION (INDEPENDENT), PETITIONER
In the Matter of GILT EDGE TEXTILE MILLS, INC., EMPLOYER and,
NEW BEDFORD Loom FIXERS UNION (INDEPENDENT), PETITIONER
Oases Nos. 1-R-3101 and 1-R-3100, respectively. -Decided September
10, 1946 c.
Mr. A. F. Fogelman, of New Bedford, Mass., for the Employer.
Mr. Jacob Dimond, of New Bedford, Mass ., for Gilt Edge.
Messrs. Jacob Minkin and Hermenegilde Cote, both of New Bedford,
Mass., for the Petitioner.
Mr. Frank Sgtvmbato, of Providence, R. I., and Mr. John Vertente,
Jr., of New Bedford, Mass., for the Intervenor.
Mr. Jerome J. Dick, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
Upon separate petitions duly filed, separate hearings in these cases
were held at New Bedford, Massachusetts, on June 27, 1946,' before
Julius Kirle, Trial Examiner. The Trial Examiner's rulings nude
at the hearings are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
For the purpose of decision the two cases are hereby consolidated.
Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations
Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT,
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYERS
Ramsay Mills, Inc., hereinafter called Ramsay, and Gilt Edge
Textile Mills, Inc., hereinafter called Gilt Edge, are Massachusetts
corporations, each having a mill in New Bedford, Massachusetts.
The Employers are engaged in the business of weaving cloth from
rayon yarn on a commission basis. All of the raw yarn used by the
Employers is owned by other companies, which ship it to the mills
of the Employers from points outside the Commonwealth of Massa-
chusetts. Approximately all of the finished products manufacture5l
70 N L R B, No. 120.
1283
7 13 44-4 7-vol 70 83
1284 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
by the Employers are shipped to points outside the Commonwealth
of Massachusetts.
Both Ramsay -and Gilt Edge admit, and we find, that they are. en-
gaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act. .
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The Petitioner is an unaffiliated labor organization claiming to
represent employees of "the Employer.
The American Federation of Labor Textile Committee of the
United Textile Workers of America, herein called the Intervenor, is
a labor organization affiliated with the American Federation of
Labor, claiming to represent employees of the Employer.
III. THE ALLEGED APPROPRIATE UNITS
The Petitioner seeks separate units composed of loom fixers, spare
fixers, and changer-overs employed at the Ramsay and Gilt Edge
plants, respectively, excluding supervisory employees. But the In-
tervenor contends that the two units sought are inappropriate in view
of the past bargaining history at the two plaaits on the basis of all
inclusive production and maintenance units. Both Ramsay and Gilt
Edge take a neutral position on this issue. - .
There are 17 loom fixers in Ramsay's plant and '13 loom fixers in
Gilt Edge's plant. Although they are highly skilled, the loom fixers
in each plant 'are under the same supervision as other employees and'
have no special privileges.
The bargaining history in both plants has been practically the
same. The Intervenor's predecessor, the New Bedford Textile
Council, hereinafter called the Council, which consisted of various
textile workers' unions in the vicinity of New Bedford, including the
Petitioner, had for many years bargained on behalf of its members
in all the crafts with the various textile manufacturers in New Bed-
ford, comprising the New Bedford Cotton Manufacturers Associa-
tion. Neither Ramsay nor Gilt Edge was a member of this Associa-
tion; however, they observed the wage scale adopted by the Council,
and the Association.' In 1943, the Textile Workers Union of
America, C. I. 0., hereinafter called the C. I. 0., filed separate peti-
tions seeking production and maintenance units of Ramsay's and Gilt
Edge's employees.2 The Council, through the United Textile
Worker and its constituent unions, intervened in each case, disputing
the appropriateness of a plant-wide unit, and contending that three
I Neither Employer is today a member of the Association.
2 Matter of Ramsay Mills , Inc., 54 N L R B 31, and Matter of Gilt Edge Textile Mills,
Inc,54N L R B.21. -
RAMSAY MILLS, INC. 1285
separate craft units of loom fixers, slash tenders, and knot tiers should
be established. The Board rejected the contention of the Council in
the Ramsay, case and established a plant-wide, unit. The Board said :
Inasmuch as the record shows that the operations of the Com-
pany's mill are functionally coherent and completely integrated,
and since it is also evident that, in spite of the fact that each of
the Locals has' maintained formally separate identity, the actual
course of organizing and collective bargaining which they, as
members of the Council, have followed with respect to the Com-
pany's employees has been on an industrial basis for the past
several years, we are of the opinion that the separate units re-
quested by the Locals, are inappropriate for the purposes of
collective bargaining.
For the reasons set" forth in the Ramsay case, the Board also estab-
lished a production and maintenance unit in the Gilt Edge case.
The United Textile Workers of America, which appeared on. the
ballot with the C. I. 0., won both elections, and was separately certi-
fied as the collective bargaining representative for the production
and maintenance employees of Ramsay and Gilt Edge. The Coun-
cil and its constituent unions (including the Petitioner) then entered
into union-shop contracts With Ramsay and Gilt Edge on June 22 and
Jelly 14, 1944, respectively, covering the units established by the
Board. Thereafter, the Council became known as the American
Federation of Labor Textile Committee of the United Textile Work-
ers of America, which is the Intervenor in this case.
On March 18, 1945, the Petitioner withdrew from the Intervenor.
Thereafter Ramsay's loomfixers maintained their membership 'in the
Petitioner. However, the Intervenor permitted this arrangement
solely because, •(1) it expected the Petitioner to reaffiliate, and (2) it
did not wish to cause any labor disturbances during the war. Al-
though the Petitioner negotiated with Ramsay concerning certain in-
dividual loomfixers, since March 18, 1945, the Intervenor secured three
general wage increases for all the Ramsay employees.
Following the Petitioner's withdrawal from the Intervenor, Gilt
Edge's loomfixers also maintained their membership in the Petitioner.
While the Petitioner did negotiate with Gilt Edge concerning cer-
tain problems involving loomfixers, the Intervenor also obtained
general Wage increases for all of. Gilt Edge's employees. Further-
more, in 1945, although the Petitioner, attempted to inject itself into
bargaining negotiations which were being conducted between the In-
tervenor and Gilt Edge.concerning a retroactive pay increase, Gilt
Edge refused to treat with the Petitioner in any respect.3
"After the Petitioner filed notice of a labor dispute under the War Labor Disputes Act
and the employees t oted to strike, the retroactive wage increase was granted by Gilt Edge
1286 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Petitioner bases its argument for separate craft units on the
Luther and Pepperell case.4 In that case the Board directed self-
determination elections among craft groupings of loomfixers, slasher
tenders, and knot tiers in textile plants in the Fall River area despite
a previous decision that only plant-wide units were appropriate in
that area. However, the Board stated in a footnote in its decision in
the Luther and Pepperell case that ". . . our determination in this
proceeding is not to be construed as applicable to conditions which
obtain in the New Bedford, Massachusetts area." Thus, in the sub-
sequent case of Itlatter of New Bedford Cotton Manufacturers Asso-
ciation, 62 N. L. R. B. 1249, the Board, relying on two prior New Bed-
ford Cotton Manufacturers Association casess and the Ramsay and
Gilt Edge cases mentioned above, distinguished the conditions in the
New Bedford area from the Fall River area and established as Asso-
ciation-wide production and maintenance unit.. In that proceeding
the Board rejected the Petitioner's contention that an Association-
wide craft unit of loomfixers was appropriate. It said:
For a great many years' there has thus existed in the textile
mills of New Bedford a pattern of collective bargaining on an
Association-wide or company-wide basis. This pattern 'was
created not only with the acquiescence'but also with the support
of the Loomfixers, the Slasher Tenders, and the Firemen, and has,
as w is° testified in the previous proceeding, contributed to the
establishment of a sound basis of labor relations in-the textile mills
of New Bedford. To alter the existing bargaining pattern at this
late-date and to set up the craft units requested by the Loomfixers,
the Slasher Tenders, and the Firemen would be disruptive of
that stability in labor relations which the Act is designed to
achieve.
The evidence adduced at the present hearings relative to the period
subsequent to our decisions in the previous Ramsay and Gilt Edge
cases reveals that the_Intervenor has continued to represent the em-
ployees of both Ramsay and Gilt Edge on a plant-wide basis ,and has
obtained benefits for all employees, including the loomfixers. There
is therefore nothing in the records sufficiently persuasive to impel us
to alter our decisions in these prior cases wherein we established pro-
duction and maintenance units' for employees of Ramsay and Gilt
Edge, Nor, in view of oi,Ir decision in the last New Bedford case,
can the Petitioner 'validly justify its position herein on the basis of
the Luther and Pepperell case. In fact, our decision in the last New
4 Matter of Luther Manufaetui ing Co , et'al , 58 N L R B 1307, and 61 N L. R. B 858
e Matter of Ifoward Ai thur Mills, 42 N L R B 515.
47 N L It B 1345 and 48 N L R 13 1251
RAMSAY MILLS, INC.
i
1287
Bedford case sets forth cogent reasons for leaving undisturbed the
pattern of collective bargaining which presently exists in the New
Bedford area.
Accordingly, we find that the units proposed by the Petitioner for
the employees of Ramsay and Gilt Edge, respectively, are not appro-
priate for the purposes of collective bargaining, and we shall dismiss
the separate petitions filed herein.
VI. THE ALLEGED QUESTIONS CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
Since the separate bargaining units sought to be established by the
petitions are inappropriate, as stated in Section III, supra, we find that
no questions concerning the representation of employees of Ramsay
and Gilt Edge within appropriate units have arisen within the mean-
ing of Section 9 (c) of the Act.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and the entire
record in these proceedings, the National Labor Relations Board here=
by orders that the separate petitions for investigation and certification
of representatives of employees of Ramsay Mills, Inc., and Gilt Edge
Textile Mills, Inc., respectively, filed by New Bedford Loomfixers
Union- (Independent), be, and they hereby are, dismissed.
MR. JAMES J. REYNOLDS, JR., took no part in the consideration of
the above Decision and Order.