Textile Printing Co. of Warren, Inc.Download PDFNational Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsJul 31, 194457 N.L.R.B. 779 (N.L.R.B. 1944) Copy Citation In the Matter of TExTILE PRINTING CO. OF WARREN, INC. and LOCAL #602, INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS (A. F. L.) Case No. 1-R--1842.-Decided July 31,1944 - Mr. James B. Nolen, of Holyoke, Mass., for the Company. Mr. Charles G. Dearden, of Springfield, Mass. and 1F[r. Thomas Flynn, of Agawam, Mass., for the Engineers. 'Mr. Benjamin Wyle, of New York City, for the Dyers. Mr. David V. Easton, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND •ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon a second amended petition , duly filed by Local #602, Inter- national Union of Operating Engineers ( A. F. L.-), herein called the Engineers , alleging that a question , affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation of employees of Textile Printing Co. of Warren, Inc., Bondsville , Massachusetts , herein called the Company, the National Labor Relations Board provided for an appropriate hearing upon due notice before Leo J .,Halloran , Trial Examiner: Said hearing was held at Springfield , Massachusetts ,- on June 19, 1944. The, Company , the Engineers , and Federation of Dyers, Finishers, Printers & Bleachers of America , Department of Textile Workers Union of America, affiliated with the C. I. 0., herein called-the Dyers, appeared , participated , and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross -examine witnesses , and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues . The Trial Examiner's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. All parties- were afforded an opportunity to file briefs with the Board. Subsequent to,the hearing, the Dyers addressed a motion to the Board seeking dismissal of the second amended petition herein . For reasons hereinafter stated, the motion is granted. 57 N. L . R. B., No. 130. 779 780- DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Upon the entire 'record- in the case, the Board makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY Textile Printing Co. of Warren, Inc., a Massachusetts corporation, is engaged in the business of textile processing and screen printing and finishing. Tor this purpose it operates two plants, one located at West Warren, Massachusetts, and another at Bondsville, Massachusetts, referred to herein as the West Warren and Bondsville plants, respec- tively. During the calendar year 1943, the Company purchased raw materials for use at both plants valued at approximately $300,000, of which about 95 percent was received from points outside the Com- monwealth of Massachusetts. During the sane period, the Company manufactured at its plants finished products valued at approximately $750,000, of;which about 95 percent was shipped to points outside the Commonwealth. The Company admits that it is engaged in commerce within the nieaning_of the National Labor Relations Act. II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED Local #602, International Union of Operating Engineers is a labor organization affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, ad- mitting to membership employees of the Company. Federation of Dyers, Finishers, Printers & Bleachers of America, Department of Textile Workers Union of America, is a labor organiza- tion affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, admit-' ting to membership employees of the Company. III. THE ALLEGED APPROPRIATE UNIT' The Engineers seeks to represent all maintenance department•em- ployees of the Company at its Bondsville plant. The Dyers contends that this unit is inappropriate , asserting that the only appropriate unit is one composed of all production and maintenance employees of the, Company at both its West Warren and Bondsville plants. The Company assumes a neutral position , but is of the opinion that only an "'industrial unit" is ;appropriate. I On January 16, 1941 , the Company , which was at that time-operat- ing a single plant at West Warren, Massachusetts , and the Dyers exe- cuted an agreement in which the Dyers was recognized as the bargain- ing agent of the employees at the West Warren plant . On January , 24, 1941, this written understanding was expanded , and the Company and. the Dyers entered into a more comprehensive collective bargain- i TEXTILE PRINTING CO. OF WARREN , INC. 781 iilg Agreement which provided , inter alia,' for the recognition of the Dyers as the bargaining agent for all employees of the Company, ex- cept general office help and salaried foremen. This agreement, by its terms , expired on August 31 , 1943, and was followed by a subse- quent contract between the parties , dated September 1, 1943. The sec- and agr enient provides for a 3 -year term ending August 31, 1946. Prior to the execution of the 1943 agreement , the Company , having purchased property at Bondsville , Massachusetts , established a plant at that location . As of September 14, 1943, this plant had not as yet commenced production operations , but was staffed by several mainte- nance employees , who had been sent from the West Warren plant. On that date , the Company and the Dyers executed a supplemental agree- ment which provided that the terms of the contract of September 1, 1943, were to be applied to the employees of the Bondsville plant as well as to those of the West Warren plant. Between September'1943 and January 1944, the Bondsville plant started production operations , and, as of the date of the hearing, en-1- ployed approximately 150 employees , of which about 60 were classified as maintenance department employees .' In February 1944, the 1Jngi- neers made an oral demand for recognition as the bargaining repre- sentative of certain of the employees at the Bondsville plant. The Engineers contends that the Company has never bargained for its maintenance employees , as part of the industrial unit established by the contracts between the Company and the Dyers , pointing to the fact that these agreements , set forth no wage, schedules for such em- ployees. However, , the record shows that prior to the opening of the Bondsville plant, the Company had not employed any large number ,of maintenance employees, and that, when it decided to create- a maintenance department , it requested the Dyers,to postpone negotia- tions with respect to the wage rates of these employees until such time as a greater number' were employed . Negotiations with respect to, the wage rates of maintenance employees were in a preliminary stage at the time the petition . in this proceeding was filed. The contracts between the Company and the Dyers embraced whatever maintenance employees the Company engaged, and we are convinced that, despite the failure to include therein specific provisions for wages of main- tenance employees , the Company , and the Dyers have conducted their 'In 1941, when the Dyers was recognized as the collective bargaining agent of the Com- pany 's employees , the Company employed approximately 200 workers when the supple- mental agreement of September 14, 1943, was executed by the Company and the Dyers, the Company employed approximately 150 workers at its west warren plant and a similar number at its Bondsville plant. The record indicates that the Company anticipates an increase of personnel amounting to approximately 75 employees . In view of these employ- ment figures , we are of the opinion that the Company granted recognition to the Dyers as the'representative of all its employees at a time when it employed a representative number of its total anticipated personnel - 782 ',DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD collective bargaining relations upon the basis of an industrial unit, inclusive of maintenance employees. In addition , since 1943, collective bargaining between the Com- pany and the Dyers apparently has been conducted on a company -wide' basis. The operations of the Company's two plants are closely re- lated. The same labor policies,, wage standards , and working condi- tions apply to each , and their pay rolls are made up at the West Warren plant, without separate designation . The West Warren plant is staffed solely with production employees , whereas the Bondsville plant, where the Company has placed its maintenance department, has both production and maintenance employees. All maintenance work performed at the West Warren plant is done by maintenance depart- ment employees sent from the Bondsville plant. In addition to tem- porary transfers of maintenance employees ,'there have been transfers' of several production employees between these plants at the con-' venience of the Company . Furthermore , all civilian goods processed at the Bondsville plant are sent to the West Warren plant for final finishing. Thus the history of collective bargaining and the functional inte- gration of the West Warren and Bondsville plants, indicate .,the appropriateness of a unit consisting of all the Company's production and maintenance employees engaged at both plants. Since the Engineers seeks a unit limited in scope to but one of the plants, and restricted in composition to the maintenance department employees thereof, we are of the opinion and find that such a unit is inappro- priate for collective bargaining purposes. IV: THE ALLEGED QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION Since, as indicated in Section III, above ' 'the bargaining unit sought by the Engiheers is inappropriate for the purposes of collective bar- gaining, we find that no question concerning the representation of employees , of the Company in an appropriate unit has been raised. Accordingly , we shall dismiss the second , amended petition herein- ORDER Upon the basis of the above findings " of fact, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the second amended petition for investigation and certification of representatives of employees of Tex- tile Printing Co. of Warren, Inc., Bondsville , Massachusetts , filed by 'Local $ 602, International Union of Operating Engineers (A. F. L.), be, and it hereby is, dismissed. MR. GERARD D. REILLY took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Order. Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation