Textileather Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 5, 1946

68 N.L.R.B. 475 (N.L.R.B. 1946)

In the Matter of TEXTILEATHER CORPORATION and FOREMEN'S ASSOCIA-
TION OF AMERICA, CHAPTER 279 (INDEPENDENT)
Case No. 8-R-2169.-Decided June 5, 1946
Mr. Henry R. Bloch, of Toledo, Ohio, for the Company.
Mr. Carl Brown, of Detroit, Mich., for the Union.
Mr. Martin T. Camacho, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a petition duly filed by Foreman's Association of America,
Chapter 279 (Independent), herein called the Union, alleging that a
question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation of
employees of Textileather Corporation, Toledo, Ohio, herein called the
Company, the National Labor Relations Board provided for an appro-
priate hearing upon due notice before Thomas E. Shroyer, Trial Ex-
aminer. The hearing was held at Toledo, Ohio, on April 24, 1946. The
Company 1 and the Union appeared and participated. All parties were
afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine
witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues. At the hear-
ing the Company moved to dismiss the petition on various grounds dis-
cussed hereinafter. The Trial Examiner referred this motion to the
Board. For reasons stated, infra, the motion is hereby denied. The Trial
Examiner's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error
and are hereby affirmed. All parties were afforded opportunity to file
briefs with the Board.
I At the outset of the hearing the Company announced that it was appearing specially to
contest the jurisdiction of the Board. However , notwithstanding this declaration , the Company
participated fully in the hearing.
68 N. L. R. B., No. 66.
475
476 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
Textileather Corporation is a Delaware corporation engaged in the
manufacture of fabricated leather products, finished corduroys, and auto-
motive headlinings at its plant in Toledo, Ohio. The Company uses raw
materials consisting of cotton goods, corduroys, coated fabrics, and
chemicals, of which approximately 90 percent is shipped to the Toledo
plant from points outside the State of Ohio. The Company annually
manufactures goods valued at more than $1,000,000, of which approxi-
mately 95 percent represents shipments to points outside the State.
The Company admits, and we find, that it is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Foreman's Association of America , Chapter 279 ( Independent), is a
labor organization admitting to membership supervisory employees of the
Company.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
On or about February 6, 1946, the Union by letter requested recogni-
tion as the collective bargaining representative of the Company's fore-
men and assistant foremen in the unit hereinafter found appropriate.
The Company did not answer the letter.
In support of its motion to dismiss the petition, the Company con-
tends, inter alia, that the foremen and assistant foremen herein involved
are not employees within the meaning of the Act. The arguments ad-
vanced by the Company in support of its motion have been considered
in a number of previous cases. The Board has found,2 as have the courts,3
that the definitions of "employer" and "employee" contained in the Act
are not mutually exclusive ; that a foreman is an "employer" when he acts
in the interests of his employer, but he is an "employee" when he acts in
his own interest, as when he seeks to better the terms and conditions of
his employment. Inasmuch as the foreman and assistant foreman in the
present proceeding are acting in their own interests, we find that they
' See Matter of Federal-Mogul Corporation, 66 N L. R B 532, and cases cited therein.
8 N. L. R B. v Armour & Co., 154 F. (2d) 570 (C C. A. 10, November 5, 1945), 17 L R R.
372; Jonej & Laughlin Steel Corporation, v. N. L. R. B., 146 F. (2d) 833 (C. C. A. 5);
N. L. R. B. v. Skinner & Kennedy Stationery Company, 113 F. (2d) 667 (C. C. A. 8).
TEXTILEATHER CORPORATION 477
are employees within the definition contained in Section 2 (3) of the
Act.4
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning
the representation of employees of the Company , within the meaning of
Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and ( 7) of the Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The Union seeks a unit of foremen and assistant foremen in pro-
duction, maintenance, power, and inspection departments. It would
exclude supervisory employees who supervise clerical, technical, and
safety operations of the Company.
The Company takes no position with respect to the composition of
the unit but contends that (a) the Board lacks jurisdiction to find a unit
of its foremen and assistant foremen appropriate allegedly because these
supervisors are not employees within the meaning of the Act, (b) assum-
ing that the Board has jurisdiction, it should as a matter of discretion
refuse to find such a unit appropriate, (c) the Union is not a labor
organization within the meaning of the Act. We have considered all
these arguments in previous cases and found them, as we do here, to
be without merit.5
There are approximately 13 foremen and 38 assistant foremen within
the unit sought by the Union. Each foreman is generally in charge of 1
or more departments. The departments operate on a 2- or 3-shift basis.
The foreman is usually present only on the day shift. On other shifts an
assistant foreman is in charge. Foremen and assistant foremen enjoy
identical privileges and have substantially the same authority except that
the assistant foremen are subordinate to the foremen.
We find that all foremen and assistant foremen in the production,
maintenance, power, and inspection departments, excluding supervisory
employees in the general office, technical, and safety departments, and all
supervisors above the rank of foremen constitute a unit appropriate for
the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b)
of the Act.
V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
We shall direct that the question concerning representation which has
arisen be resolved by an election by secret ballot among employees in
4 Matter of The B F Goodrich Company, 65 N L. R. B 294, and cases cited; Matter of
Federal-Mogul Corporation, supra , and cases cited therein.
Matter of Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation, 66 N. L. R B. 386 ; Matter of Federal-Mogul
Corporation, supra, Matter of The Celote-r Corporation, 66 N L. R. B 744, Matter of The B F.
Goodrich Company, supra; Matter of L. A. Young Spring & Wire Corporation, 65 N. L. R. B.
298
478 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the appropriate unit who were employed during the pay-roll period
immediately preceding the date of the Direction of Election herein, sub-
ject to the limitations and additions set forth in the Direction.
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,
and pursuant to Article III, Section 9, of National Labor Relations
Board Rules and Regulations - Series 3, as amended, it is hereby
DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation to ascertain representa-
tives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Textileather Cor-
poration, Toledo, Ohio, an election by secret ballot shall be conducted
as early as possible, but not later than thirty (30) days from the date
of this Direction, under the direction and supervision of the Regional
Director for the Eighth Region, acting in this matter as agent for the
National Labor Relations Board, and subject to Article III, Sections
10 and 11, of said Rules and Regulations, among employees in the unit
found appropriate in Section IV, above, who were employed during the
pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of this Direction, including
employees who did not work during said pay-roll period because they
were ill or on vacation or temporarily laid off, and including employees
in the armed forces of the United States who present themselves in per-
son at the polls, but excluding those employees who have since quit or
been discharged for cause and have not been rehired or reinstated prior
to the date of the election, to determine whether or not they desire to
be represented by Foremen's Association of America, Chapter 279 (Inde-
pendent), for the purposes of collective bargaining.
MR. GERARD D. REILLY, dissenting :
For the reasons stated in my dissenting opinion in Matter of Packard
Motor Car Company, 61 N. L. R. B. 4, I am constrained to dissent from
the majority opinion in this case.