Union Manufacturing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 7, 1947

72 N.L.R.B. 494 (N.L.R.B. 1947)

In the Matter of MORRIS HARRIS AND ANNA HARRIS, CO-PARTNERS, D/B/A
UNION MANUFACTURING COMPANY, EMPLOYER and AMALGAMATED
CLOTHING WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER
Case No. 16-R-2007.-Decided February 7, 1947
Mr. J. H. Roth, of El Paso, Tex., for the Employer.
Messrs. Cerefino Anclzondo and Latane Lambert, of El Paso, Tex.,
for the Petitioner.
Messrs. Sam Diaz and George F. Webber, of El Paso, Tex., for the
Intervenor.
Mr. Jack Mantel, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
Upon an amended petition duly filed, the National Labor Relations
Board, on October 31, 1946, conducted a prehearing election pursuant
to Section 203.49 of the Board's Rules and Regulations among the
employees in the alleged appropriate unit, to determine whether they
desired to be represented by the Petitioner or by the Intervenor, or
by neither labor organization, for the purposes of collective bargain-
ing. At the close of the election, a, Tally of Ballots was furnished the
parties. The Tally reveals that there were approximately 231 eligible
voters; that 222 valid-ballots were cast, of which 145 were for the
Petitioner, 2 for the Intervenor, and 75 for neither; and that 5 ballots
were challenged.
On November 6, 1946, the Intervenor filed objections to the conduct
of the election. Thereafter, a hearing was held at El Paso, Texas, on
December 5, 1946, before Lewis Moore, hearing officer. The hearing
officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error
and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations
Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
Union Manufacturing Company is a partnership with its principal
office at Los Angeles, California. We are here concerned with the
72 N. L. R. B., No. 89.
494
UNION MANUFACTURING COMPANY 495
Employer's plant at El Paso, Texas, where it is engaged in the mann-
facture of men's work clothes. During the 6-month period preceeding
the date of the hearing, the Employer purchased materials for use
at its El Paso plant valued in excess of $100,000, of which over 90
percent was shipped to its plant from points outside the State of Texas.
During the same period, the Employer manufactured finished products
at its El Paso plant, valued in excess of $150,000, of which over $147,000
worth was shipped to points outside the State of Texas.
We find that the Employer is engaged in commerce within the mean-
ing of the National Labor Relations Act.
If. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The Petitioner is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress
of Industrial Organizations, claiming to represent employees of the
Employer.
United G lament 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.
IT[. THE QUESTION CONCERNING RFPRESENT ATION
The Employer refuses to recognize the Petitioner as the exclusive
bargaining representative of employees of the Employer until the
Petitioner has been cert ifiecl by the Board in an appropriate unit.
We find that a, question affecting colnnierce. has arisen concerning
the representation of employees of the Employer, within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
We find, in substantial accord with the agreement, of the parties,
that all production and maintenance employees of the Employer, in-
cluding operators, inspectors, pressers, bundle boys, numerators or
numberers, production counters, markers, cutters, shipping employees,
machinists and machinists' helpers, but excluding clerical employees,
night watchman, head shipper, plant manager, superintendent, fore-
men, foreladies, and all other supervisory employees with authority to
hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the
status of employees, or effectively recommend such action, constitute
a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
V. TIIE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
The Intervenor objected to the conduct of the election, alleging that
the results thereof were influenced because of a statement made by a
Board agent to two employees. The record discloses that the Inter-
731242-47-N ol. 72-33
496 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
venor had designated two employees to serve as observers for the
election. The Board agent summoned these employees to the polling
place immediately before the election in order to instruct them as to
their duties. They told the Board agent that they would not serve
as observers and the former requested them to sign a statement to
that effect. The two employees testified that upon their refusal to
sign such statement, the agent told them that they would have to do so,
"because that's the only thing that will keep you from going to jail."
The employees returned to their work until voting time, then cast
their ballots and returned to their job. They did not discuss the
matter with any other employees who were eligible to vote in the
election, nor does it appear that the incident was witnessed by any
other employees. A statement of the Board agent, which Wa* s made
a part of the record by stipulation of the parties, showed that the
agent had told the two employees that they should sign the waiver
to act as observers "to keep me out of jail."
Without condoning the statement attributed to the Board agent,
it is our opinion that neither version of what was said to the two
employees is sufficient to warrant the setting aside of the election.
The results of the election held prior to the hearing show that the
Petitioner has secured a large majority of the valid votes cast and
that the challenged ballots are insufficient in number to affect the
results of the election. Under these circumstances, we shall not direct
that the challenged ballots be opened and counted, but instead we shall
certify the Petitioner as the collective bargaining representative of
the employees in the unit hereinbefore found appropriate.
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that Amalgamated Clothing Workers of
America, CIO, has been designated and selected by a majority of all
production and maintenance employees of Morris Harris and Anna
Harris , co-partners , d/b/a Union Manufacturing Company, El Paso,
Texas, including operators, inspectors, pressers, bundle boys, numera-
tors, or numberers, production counters, markers, cutters, shipping
employees, machinists and machinists' helpers, but excluding clerical
employees, night watchman, head shipper, plant manager, superin-
tendent, foremen, foreladies, and all other supervisory employees with
authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect
changes in the status of employees, or effectively recommend such
action, as their representative for the purposes of collective bargain-
ing, and that, pursuant to Section 9 (a) of the Act, the said organi-
zation is the exclusive representative of all such employees for the
purposes of collective bargaining with respect to rates of pay, wages,
hours of employment, and other conditions of employment.