Victor Hosiery Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 28, 1949

86 N.L.R.B. 195 (N.L.R.B. 1949)

In the Matter of VICTOR HOSIERY CORPORATION, FAILOR HOSIERY CoRPo-
RATION, H & M HOSIERY CORPORATION, JORDAN HOSIERY CORPORATION,
AND REYNOLDS HOSIERY CORPORATION,' EMPLOYER and AMERICAN
FEDERATION OF HOSIERY WORKERS, PETITIONER
Case No. 5-RC-333.-Decided September 28,1949
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before Charles B.
Slaughter, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the
hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection
with this case to a three-member panel [Members Reynolds, Murdock,
and Gray].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The business of the Employer :
The Victor Hosiery Corporation, a Maryland Corporation, herein
called Victor, is engaged at its only mill at Hagerstown, Maryland,
in the manufacture and sale of full-fashioned and seamless hosiery.
Victor admits, and we find that it is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.2
Jordan Hosiery Corporation, a Maryland corporation, Failor
Hosiery Corporation, a Maryland corporation, H & H Hosiery Cor-
poration, a Pennsylvania corporation, and Reynolds Hosiery Corpo-
ration, a Maryland corporation, herein respectively called Jordan,
Failor, H & H, and Reynolds, and generally called the four corpora-
tions, each has as its sole property one Reading full-fashioned hosiery
knitting machine.3 These four very expensive pieces of equipment
1 The 5 corporations were named jointly as the Employer by the amended petition in
this proceeding and the names appear as amended at the hearing.
% During 1948 over 90 percent of Victor's raw materials , valued at approximately
$300,000, were received from points outside the State of Maryland . During the same period
over 90 percent of Victor's finished products , valued at approximately $800,000, were
shipped to points outside the State of Maryland . Although figures covering the operations
of the other four corporations were not furnished , it is clear from the record that the figures
applicable to Victor included the operations of the four corporations.
8 These four corporations were incorporated during September and October 1946. It
appears that at that time, when knitting machines were on a priority list, each of four
knitters, employed by Victor, who has served in the armed forces and were entitled to
86 N. L. R. B., No. 34. 195
196 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
are located in the same knitting room which contains machines belong-
ing to Victor. Victor maintains the machines, furnishes janitorial
and watchman service, electricity, space, and all other necessary serv-
ices for which no rent is paid. Victor furnishes all raw materials to
the four knitting machines, retaining title at all times, and all knitted
products are returned to Victor which grades, dies, boards, pairs, and
generally finished the product. For this knitting service, Victor pays
each corporation a fixed sum per dozen pairs of stockings based on the
grade of stockings produced on the machine of each corporation. This
constitutes the only income of each of the four corporations.
Separate bank accounts are maintained for each corporation. How-
ever, all bookkeeping services, preparation of checks, social security
and tax forms, and other necessary office services are performed by
Victor's only office employee who receives no separate compensation
from these four corporations for the service rendered.
The only employees of each of the four corporations are two knitters;
former employees of Victor, who punch the same time clock; receive the
Same base wage rate, work the same hours and under the same con-
ditions, receive the same vacations and have access to the sane facili-
ties as the employees of Victor. Further, the employees of these five
corporations are supervised, along with Victor employees by Victor's
supervisors, and'the employees of the five corporations are generally
treated as a single employee group.4
Jordali, Failor, H & H, and Reynolds, each deny that they are en-
gaged in interstate commerce and subject to the Board's jurisdiction
Nxithili the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.6 A-11 five
corporations assert that they are each an independent corporation and
contend in substance that they should not collectively be deemed an
employer within the meaning of Section 2 (2) of the Act. We find
no merit to this contention. The facts set forth above clearly indicate
the interdependence of operations of the five corporations and the
exercise of effective control by Victor over the employees of the other
veterans preference, with the encouragement , advice , and assistance of the president of
Victor, applied for and received a knitting machine. The four corporations were then set
up and each veteran assigned his machine to his respective corporation and received a major
share of the stock of his corporation. The remaining shares in each corporation were
assigned to Victor's supervisors with the exception of one or two shares in three of the
four corporations which were assigned to the secretary of the corporations ' attorney.
Identical agreements were then executed between each of these four corporations and
Victor covering their operating relationship . Three of the four veterans have since sold
their stock to sons of Morris Ellis, president and principal stockholder of Victor.
4 As an example, the employees of all five corporations were recently assembled together
at which time Morris Ellis, president and principal stockholder of Victor, discussed with
them jointly certain wage proposals.
5 See Matter of Save Electric Corporation, at al ., 79 N. L. R. B. 370; Matter of Unique
Ventilation Co.. Inc., 75 N. L. R. B. 325 ; Matter of Schuylkill Products Company, Inc.,
73 N. L. R. B. 340.
VICTOR HOSIERY CORPORATION 197
four corporations. We find therefore, that Victor Hosiery Corpora-
tion, Failor Hosiery Corporation, H & H Hosiery Corporation, Jor-
dan Hosiery Corporation, and Reynolds Hosiery Corporation, to-
gether constitute a single employer within the meaning of Section 2
(2) of the Act.'
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
. 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9
(c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Petitioner seeks a unit of all production and maintenance
employees of the Employer excluding foremen, foreladies, office cleri-.
cal employees, professional employees, watchmen, guards, and super-
visors as defined in the Act. The parties are in disagreement as to
the supervisory status of certain individuals, the Employer taking
the position that only the general superintendent is a supervisor.
. Among those individuals whom the Petitioner would exclude as
supervisors are officers of the four corporations.' Although they are
also regularly employed in the production operation, because of their
positions as a part of management, we shall exclude them from the
unit hereinafter found appropriate.
There remains for consideration the determination of the super-
visory status of certain other individuals.
Foreladies: The two foreladies,$ in the finishing department and the
seamless department, supervise the work and can effectively recom-
mend firing or transfer of any employee in their respective depart-
ments. We find that the,they are supervisors as defined in the Act and
shall exclude them from the unit.
Dyer: The dyer 9 is a qualified chemist and is in charge of the dye-
ing department. The only other employees in this department are two
kettle hands. It appears that he not only closely supervises kettle
hands but also has effectively recommended the removal from the de-
partment or discharge of such employees. We find that the dyer is a
supervisor within the meaning of the Act, and shall, accordingly, ex-
clude him from the unit hereinafter found appropriate.
6 See Matter of W. W. Holmes, et at., 83 N . L. R. B. 49 ; Matter of Smith -Rice Mill, Inc.,
et al ., 83 N. L. R. B. 380; Matter of Clarksburg Paper Company, 80 N. L. R. B. 1304.
Individuals falling within this category are John Wolford, treasurer of Failor ; John
Failor, president of Failor ; Edward Jordan, president of Jordan ; Thomas C . Reynolds,
president of Reynolds; and Harold Ellis, officer of H & H , executive assistant of Victor,
and son of Morris Ellis , president of Victor.
s Jean Eckard, forelady - of the finishing department , and Eva Warden, forelady of the
seamless department.
Otto Kern.
867351-50-vol. 86-1.4
198 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Fixers: The two fixers in the full-fashioned department,10 the looper
fixer in the looping and seaming department," and the fixer in the
seamless department,12 perform the duties typical of employees in the
category. They are responsible to management for the operations of
their respective departments on their respective shifts, and direct and
discipline employees in such departments. In accordance with our
usual practice, we find that the fixers are supervisors within the mean-
ing of the Act.13 We shall, accordingly, exclude them from the unit.
The assistant fixer 14 in the seamless department is learning the
skills of fixing. He works the same shift as the-fixer and in the fixer's
absence takes over repair of the knitting machines.. He exercises no
control over the employees on the shift even in the absence of the fixer.
As it appears that the assistant fixer has no supervisory authority, we
shall include him in the unit "
We find that all production and maintenance employees at the Ha-
gerstown, Maryland, mill of the Employer including knitters 18 but
excluding executives and corporate officers, foremen, foreladies, the
dyer, fixers, office clerical employees, professional employees, watch-
men, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the mean-
ing of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the
purposes of collective bargaining with the Employer, an election
by secret ballot shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later
than 60 days from the date of this Direction; under the direction and
supervision of the Regional Director for the Region in which this
case was heard, and subject to Sections 203.61 and 203.62 of National
Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations, among the employees
in the unit found appropriate in paragraph numbered 4, above, who
were employed during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the
date of this Direction of Election, including employees who did not
11 George Eakle and Kenneth Hartle are classified by the Employer as machinists. How-
ever, it appears from the record that they are actually machine fixers on separate,ahifts in
the full-fashioned department. -
11 Earle Ward , classified as looper fixer.
12 John Guyer, classified as machine fixer.
13 Matter of Lykens Hosiery Mills, Inc., 82 N. L. R. B. 981 ; Matter of Adams-Milli8 Cor-
poration, 83 N. L. R. B. 1128, and cases cited therein.
14 Paul Rudisill, classified as machine fixer. •
15 Matter. of Gurney Manufacturing Company, et al., 72 N. L. R. B. 311.
16 In view of the determination set forth in paragraph numbered 1,. supra, employees of
the five corporations are regarded collectively as employees of the Employer. The em-
ployees operating the knitting machines of the four corporations are, therefore, Included
In the unit.
VICTOR HOSIERY CORPORATION 199
work during said pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation
or temporarily laid off, but excluding those employees who have since
quit or been discharged for cause and have not been rehired or re-
instated prior to the date of the election, and also excluding employees
on strike who are not entitled to reinstatement, to determine whether
or not they desire to be represented, for purposes of collective bar-
gaining, by American Federation of Hosiery Workers.