Waumbec Dyeing and Finishing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 16, 1952

101 N.L.R.B. 1069 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

WAUMBEC DYEING AND FINISHING CO. 1069
Group (B) All boiler room employees,° including stationary engin-
eers, water testers, maintenance mechanics, boiler firemen, craft utility
men, and coal conveyor operators.
Group (C) All carpenters 10
Group (D) All maintenance painters.
Group (E) All drivers and dispatchers of gasoline- and electric-
powered vehicles.
If a majority of the employees in groups A, B, C, D, or E vote for
the labor organization seeking to represent that group separately, they
will be taken to have indicated their desire to constitute a separate
appropriate unit, and the Regional Director conducting the elections
herein is instructed to issue a certification of representatives to such
labor organization or organizations for such unit or units, which the
Board under such circumstances finds to be appropriate for purposes
of collective bargaining. In the event a majority in any of the voting
groups vote for the Intervenor they will be taken to have indicated
their desire to remain part of the existing production and maintenance
unit, the Regional Director will issue a certification of results of
election to such effect.
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication in this
volume.]
9 As the record shows there are no engine room employees at the present time, we will
not pass on the question of inclusion of such employees.
10 As the record indicates there are no woodworking machine hands, furniture repairmen,
or furniture movers at the present time, we will not pass on the question of inclusion of
such employees.
WAUMBEC DYEING AND FINISHING CO. and TEXTILE WTORICERS UNION
OF AMERICA, CIO, PE'rITIO1',ER. Case NO. 1-Ri'7-9919. December
16, 1952
Decision and Direction of Election
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Robert E. Greene, hearing
officer.' The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
On September 26, 1952, after the close of the hearing in this case, the Petitioner re-
quested permission to withdraw the petition . Thereafter , on October 13, 1952, It filed a
memorandum in support of that request , in which it conceded, as the Employer contended
in its memorandum filed in opposition to the Petitioner ' s request , that it was engaged
in a strike and picketing at the Employer 's operation for the purpose of securing recognition
as the bargaining agent for the employees covered by its petition . At that time , as now,
the parties were in dispute over the appropriateness of the unit sought by the Petitioner.
On the basis of these facts, by order dated October 16 , 1952, the full Board of five mcutbers,
(Members Houston and Styles dissenting ) decided that it would best effectuate the policies
of the Act to deny the request for withdrawal , and accordingly denied the Petitioner's
request.
101 NLRB No. 193.
1070 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain
employees 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) andSection 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The appropriate unit :
The Petitioner seeks to represent a unit of all production and main-
tenance employees employed by the Employer at its Manchester,
New Hampshire, operation, excluding all other employees, and super-
visors as defined in the Act. The Employer contends that the proposed
unit is inappropriate because it does not also include the employees of
Waumbec Mills, Inc. There is no history of collective bargaining
affecting any of the employees involved herein.
The Employer was incorporated in 1947 and has the same board
of directors and officers, and virtually the same stockholders , as does
Waumbec Mills, Inc., hereinafter referred to as Waumbec Mills, which
was organized in 1937. The Employer's activities are devoted to dye-
ing and finishing rayon and other synthetic cloths, whereas Waumbec
Mills is engaged in spinning synthetic yarns and weaving griege cloth.
About 91 percent of the goods processed by the Employer are woven
by 1\Taumbec Mills, but all of the cloth manufactured by the latter
corporation is not dyed and finished by the Employer.2 Both corpo-
rations are located in the same building, and share a common entrance.
The Employer employs about 175 employees, while about 900 em-
ployees are employed by Waumbec Mills. Responsibility for the
over-all management of both companies, including the determination
of major labor policies, is vested in Saul Greenspan, president of the
Employer and treasurer of Waumbec Mills, and William Zopfi, vice
president of both companies. However, there is a separate superin-
tendent or manager in immediate charge of each operation, each of
whom handles the grievances, discharges, promotions, and "related
personnel matters" of those working under his direction.3 The de-
cisions made by either the manager of the Employer or the superin-
tendent of Waumbec Mills in the aforementioned respects are reviewed
by Greenspan and Zopfi only if appealed by the employees affected.
Although the employees of the Employer and Waumbec Mills have
the same working conditions, enjoy the same benefits and recreational
2 The total output of both companies Is marketed by The Cantor -Greenspan Company, Inc.,
which is under the same control as the Employer and Waumbec Mills.
A While the record shows that all applicants for employment fill out identical forms,
entitled "Waumbec Mills, Inc.," it does not identify the person or persons in charge of
hiring employees for each company.
WAUMBEC DYEING AND FINISHING CO. 1071
facilities, use the same parking space and first-aid room, and change
shifts at the same time, they are separately trained, perform different
duties, and the average pay of the Employer's employees is higher
than that received by Waumbec Mills' employees. Seniority of all
employees is computed on a departmental basis within each company.
Since the beginning of the Employer's operations in 1948, there have
been 12 transfers of employees from one operation to the other. The
record does not disclose any interchange of employees between the 2
companies.
Some storage space and machinery, such as compressors, all appar-
ently under the control of Waumbec Mills, are used by both corpora-
tions, as is the laboratory maintained by the Employer. It further
appears that certain employees of Waumbec Mills also perform serv-
ices for the Employer. Included in this group, for example, are
maintenance employees, employees engaged in loading and unloading
operations, the employees in the parts-stockroom and cost department,
the switchboard operator, and the main office force, which performs
clerical duties for the two companies, prepares their payrolls, and
maintains their personnel records.4 Where facilities or the services of
employees are shared by both companies, the estimated costs thereof
are allocated on a departmental basis.
While certain factors herein, such as the interrelated character of
the operation and management of the two companies, and the prox-
imity of their operations, militate in favor of a two-company unit,
they are not so compelling as to require our holding that only a two-
company unit is appropriate. Other factors here present justify a
unit confined to the employees of the Employer. Thus, there has
been no bargaining history on a two-company basis, and neither the
Petitioner nor any other labor organization seeks a certification on a
two-company basis. Each company is a separate corporate entity,
engaged in a substantially different type of work. There appears
to be no interchange, and only infrequent transfers, of employees
between the Employer and Waumbec Mills. And the Employer's
employees work under separate immediate direction, enjoy the same
conditions of employment, and are carried on a separate payroll. In
these circumstances, we are persuaded that the employees of the Em-
ployer alone constitute an appropriate unit.'
I The annual earning cards , vacation pay records, and separation records of all employees
are identical in form, and the departments in which the employees are, or were, employed,
rather than the names of the employing companies , appear thereon . Separate payrolls,
however, are prepared for each company , and each company 's pay checks bear its name,
and are different in color from those of the other.
c See The Afrparts Company, 59 NLRB 1341 ; Southern Industry Company, 78 NLRB
425; The Fli -Back Company, et at, 85 NLRB 959; Waldensian Hosiery Mills, Inc., 85
NLRB 758; Telechron, Inc., 90 NLRB 931. The cases cited by the Employer in support
of its unit contention are decisively distinguishable on their facts.
1072 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Accordingly, we find that all production and maintenance em-
ployees at the Employer's Manchester, New Hampshire, establish-
ment, excluding all other employees and supervisors as defined in the
Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining within the meaning of the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
CHAIRMAN HERZOG took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Direction of Election.
ARMOUR & COMPANY and BUTCHER WORKMEN UNION OF NEW YORK
AND NEW JERSEY , LOCAL 640 , AFL, PETITIONER
SWIFT & Co . and BUTCHER WORKMEN UNION OF NEW YORK AND NEW
JERSEY, LOCAL 640 , AFL, PETITIONER
THE CUDAHY PACKING COMPANY and BUTCHER WORKMEN UNION OF
NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY, LOCAL 640 , AFL, PETITIONER
WILSON & CO ., INC. and BUTCHER WORKMEN UNION OF NEW YORK AND
NEW JERSEY , LOCAL 640 , AFL, PETITIONER . Cases Nos. 2-RC-4855,
£-RC-4856, 2-RC-4858, 2-RC-4857, 2-RC-4943, and 2-RC-4944.
December 16,1952
Decision and Direction of Elections
Upon separate petitions duly filed 1 under Section 9 (c) of the
National Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before
Lewis Moore, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at
the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.2
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with these cases to a three-
member panel [Members Houston, Murdock, and Styles].
-1 The petitions were consolidated by orders of the Regional Director dated June 26, 1952,
and July 7, 1952.
s A motion by Wilson & Co., Inc, to dismiss the petitions covering its employees on the
ground that recognition was not requested prior to filing of the petitions is denied. At
the hearing, when Employer Wilson was asked whether it would grant recognition, the
reply was "The company will recognize the Union that is certified for the employees at
either branch." See Advance Pattern Company , 80 NLRB 29.
The Petitioner objects to the intervention of United Packinghouse Workers of America,
(`IC. herein called the Intervenor . Inasmuch as representatives of the Intervenor signed
contracts covering the employees involved, we find it has sufficient interest to intervene
in this proceeding . See Electrical Products Co., 89 NLRB 218.
101 NLRB No. 188.