Swift Spinning Mills

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 26, 1938

4 N.L.R.B. 1143 (N.L.R.B. 1938)

In the Matter Of SWIFT SPINNING MILLS and TEXTILE WORKERS
ORGANIZING COMMITTEE
Case No. R-457.-Decided January 26, 1938
Cotton Textile Industry-Investigation of Representatives : controversy con-
cerning representation of employees : union claims to represent majority of
employees but refuses to submit membership cards for comparison with Company
pay roll ; agreement to submit question of representation to Board for de-
cisions-Unit Appropriate for Collective Bargaining : all employees except cleri-
cal and supervisory ; no controversy as to-Election Ordered
Mr. Johan T. Mahoney, for the Board.
Swift, Pease, Davidson di Swinson, by Mr. J. Q. Davidson and
Mr. W. Edward Swinson, and Battle cC Smith, by Mr. Willis Battle,
all of Columbus , Ga., for the Company.
Dr. Witherspoon Dodge, of Columbus, Ga., for the Union.
Mr. Richard A. Perkins, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On September 27, 1937, Textile Workers Organizing Committee,
herein called the Union, filed with the Regional Director for the
Tenth Region (Atlanta, Georgia) a petition alleging that a question
affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation of
employees of Swift Spinning Mills, Columbus, Georgia, herein called
the Company, and requesting an investigation and certification
of representatives pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. On October 27,
1937, 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 Relations 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.
On November 11, 1937, the Regional Director issued a'notice of
Bearing, copies of which were duly served upon the Company and
upon the Union. Pursuant to the notice, a hearing was held on
1143
67573-38-vol iv-73
• 1144 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
November 27, 1937, at Columbus, Georgia , before Paul K . Hennessy,
the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board. The Board and
the Company were represented by counsel and the Union by one of
its officials , and all participated in the hearing . Full opportunity
to be heard , to examine and to cross -examine witnesses , and to intro-
duce evidence bearing on the issues was afforded all parties . During
the course of the hearing the Trial Examiner made several rulings
on motions and on objections to the admission of evidence . A brief
was filed on behalf of the Company. The Board has reviewed the
rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudicial errors
were committed . The rulings are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in the case , the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
The Company, a Georgia corporation, has a single manufacturing
plant at Columbus, Georgia, and is engaged in the production of
cotton yarn. In the year 1936 the Company used in its manufactur-
ing processes 16,692 bales of cotton, which is the principal raw ma-
terial used in such processes. The record does not definitely disclose
the origin of the cotton, but the testimony indicates that the cotton
comes from a number of the cotton-growing states. The Company
uses annually about 4,000 tons of coal shipped by rail from Birming-
ham, Alabama.
The principal processes carried on by the Company are carding,
drawing, and spinning. The Company manufactured 7,168,685
pounds of yarn in 1936. From 75 to 90 per cent of the output of
the Company is sold outside Georgia to customers in eight or ten
states.
IT. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Textile Workers Organizing Committee is a labor organization
affiliated with the Committee for Industrial Organization, admitting
to its membership all mill production employees of the Company,
excluding clerical and supervisory employees.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
A Union representative wrote the Company on August 10, 1937,
claiming that the Union represented a majority of the employees of
the Company. The letter stated that the Union would not agree
to a comparison of Union membership application cards, with the'
Company pay roll jointly by representatives of the Company and
the Union, but that the Union would agree to such a comparison by
the Board or to a consent election for the purpose of determining
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 1145
Whether the Union represented a majority of the employees.'- The
Company replied by a letter dated August 24, 1937, stating that the
entire matter was one for decision by the Board.
In its petition the Union alleged that 425 persons within the ap-
propriate unit were employed by the Company and that 271 of this
number were included within its membership.
We find that a question has arisen concerning representation of
employees of the Company.
IV. THE 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
At the hearing all parties seemed to agree that all the employees of
the Company, exclusive of clerical and supervisory employees, con-
stitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining.
We find that all the employees of the Company, excluding clerical
and supervisory employees, constitute a unit appropriate for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining and that said unit will insure to em-
ployees of the Company the full benefit of their right to self-organiza-
tion and to collective bargaining and otherwise effectuate the policies
of the Act.
VI. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
At the hearing the Union claimed to represent a majority of the
employees in the appropriate unit, but offered no proof.
We find that the question which has arisen concerning the repre-
sentation of employees can best be resolved by holding an election
by secret ballot to determine whether or not the employees wish the
Union to represent them.
Upon thc, 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 Swift Spinning Mills, Columbus, Georgia,
within the meaning of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the
National Labor Relations Act.
P
1146 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. All the employees of the Company, excluding clerical and super-
visory employees, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes 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 Relations Act,
49 Stat. 449, 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 Swift Spinning Mills, Columbus, Georgia, 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 Tenth 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-Series 1, as amended, among all
the employees of Swift Spinning Mills who were employed by the
Company during the pay roll period next preceding September 27,
1937, excluding clerical and supervisory employees and those who quit
or were discharged for cause between such date and the date of elec-
tion, to determine whether or not they desire to be represented by
Textile Workers Organizing Committee for the purpose of collective
bargaining.
4