Artcraft Hosiery Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 11, 1946

69 N.L.R.B. 392 (N.L.R.B. 1946)

'In the Matter Of ARTCRAFT HOSIERY C03IPANY and AMERICAN FED-
ERATION OF HOSIERY WORKERS, C. I. O.
Case No. 15-R-156?.-Decided July 11, 1946
Mr. Geoffrey J. Cunniff, of Philadelphia , Pa., and 3f r. Cary Stovall,
of Corinth , Miss., for the Company.
Mr. John D. Clifton, of Atlanta , Ga., for the Union.
Mr. Bernard Dunau , of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a petition duly filed by American Federation of Hosiery Work-
ers, C. I. 0., herein called the Union, alleging that a question affecting
commerce had arisen concerning the representation of employees of
Artcraft Hosiery Company, Corinth, Mississippi, herein called the
Company, the National Labor Relations Board provided for an appro-
priate hearing upon due notice before Lewis Moore, Trial Examiner.
The hearing was held at Corinth, Mississippi, on May 20, 1946. The
Company and the Union appeared and participated. At the hearing
the Trial Examiner granted the Union's motion to amend the petition
to include, rather than exclude, the watchmen in the appropriate unit.
The Trial Examiner reserved for ruling by the Board the Company's
motion to dismiss the petition on the ground that it was prejudiced by
the rejection of evidence to show the substantiality of the Union's
interest among the employees of the Company. We have fully con-
sidered the Company's arguments, and find no merit in them. The
motion, and the Company's request for oral argument, are denied.
All parties 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
i See Matter of 0 D Jennings S Company, 68 N L R B 516; Matter of Nash
Motors Division of Nash-Kelvinator Sales Corporation , 68 N L R. B 651 See
also Carl J Jacobson, et at v N. L R. B , 120 F (2d) 96, 100 (C. C A 3, 1941) ;
New York Handkerchief Mfg Co v N. L R B , 114 F (2d) 144, 148 (C C A 7, 1940),
certiorari denied 311 U. S 704 (1941).
39 N. L. R. B., No. 44.
392
ARTCRAFT HOSIERY COMPANY 393
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. All parties were
afforded opportunity to file briefs with the Board.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Artcraft Hosiery Company, a Delaware corporation, with principal
offices at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, owns and operates a plant at
Corinth, Mississippi, where it is engaged in manufacturing women's
fully fashioned hosiery. During the year 1946, it purchased raw ma-
terials, consisting mainly of yarn, valued in excess of $100,000, 90
percent of which was shipped to the plant from points outside the
State of Mississippi. During the same period of time, it produced
finished products, valued in excess of $200,000, about 90 percent of
which was shipped from the plant to points outside the State.
We find that the Company is engaged in commerce within the mean-
ing of the National Labor Relations Act.
H. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
American Federation of Hosiery Workers is a labor organization,
affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, admitting to
membership employees of the Company.
iii. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Company has refused to grant recognition to the Union as the
exclusive bargaining representative of the Company's employees until
the Union has been certified by the Board in an appropriate unit.
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
We find, in accordance with the agreement of the parties, that all
production and maintenance employees of the Company, including
knitters, footers, loopers, seamers, examiners, menders, time workers,
and watchmen, but excluding office clerical employees and all super-
visory 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.'
' Among the excluded supervisory personnel are the plant superintendent, departmental
supervisors , and maintenance supervisor
394 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
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 the appropriate unit who were employed during the pay-roll period
immediately preceding the date of the Direction of Election herein,
subject 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
DIREOTED that, as part of the investigation to ascertain representa-
tives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Artcraft Hosiery
Company, Corinth, Mississippi, 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 Fifteenth Region, acting in this mat-
ter 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 person 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 American
Federation of Hosiery Workers, C. I. O., for the purposes of collective
bargaining.
MR. GERARD D. REILLY took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Direction of Election.