Bar-Tack Manufacturing Co., Ltd.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 20, 1948

77 N.L.R.B. 203 (N.L.R.B. 1948)

III the Matter of BAR-TACK MANUFACTURING Co., LTD., EMPLOYER and
AMALGAMATED CLOTHING WORKERS OF AMERICA, C. I. 0.,
PETITIONER
In the Matter of BAR-TACK MANUFACTURING CO., LTD., EMPLOYER and
UNITED GARMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, A. F. L., PETITIONER
Cases Nos. 17-RC-6 and 17-RC-12, respectively .Decided April 20,
1948
Mr. Lloyd E. Peterson, of Nebraska City, Nebr., for the Employer.
Mr. J. H. Stocker, of Omaha, Nebr., for the CIO.
Mrs. Madge King, of Galesburg, Ill., for the AFL.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon separate petitions duly filed, hearing in these proceedings was
held at Nebraska City, Nebraska, on January 16, 1948, before William
J. Scott, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the
hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. After
the hearing, the AFL filed a petition to reopen the record for the
purpose of adducing evidence to the effect that the Employer's Otoe
plant has resumed operations. The CIO opposes the AFL's petition
to reopen the record. We note, however, that in opposing the petition
the CIO concedes, in effect, that the Otoe plant has reopened but asserts
that it has not, at present, attained full production. Accordingly,
because the fact which the AFL seeks to establish through its petition to
reopen the record has been admitted by the CIO, the petition is hereby
denied.'
Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations
Board 2 makes the following :
1 Since we have denied the AFL's petition to reopen the record , we find it unnecessary to
consider certain objections raised by the CIO, with regard to such petition.
2 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-man panel consisting
of Chairman Herzog and Board Members Houston and Reynolds
77 N L. R. B., No. 23.
203
204 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
Bar-Tack Manufacturing Co., Ltd., is a partnership engaged at
plants located in Otoe and Auburn, Nebraska, in the manufacture of
shirts and trousers under contract with the Government and various
private concerns. During the 6-month period preceding January 16,
1948, the Employer purchased for use at these plants, raw materials
valued in excess of $150,000, approximately all of which was shipped
to its, plants from outside the State of Nebraska. During the same
period, the Employer sold products valued in excess of $180,000, of
which approximately 70 percent was shipped to points outside the
State of Nebraska.
The Employer admits and we find that it is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, herein called the CIO,
is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress of Industrial
Organizations, claiming to represent employees of the Employer.
United Garment Workers of America, herein called the AFL, is a
labor organization affiliated with the American Federation of Labor,
claiming to represent employees of the Employer.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Employer refuses to recognize the CIO or the AFL as the
exclusive bargaining representative of any of the employees of the
Employer until either has been certified by the Board in an appro-
priate unit.
We find that a question 'affecting commerce exists concerning the
representation of employees of the Employer, within the meaning of
Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act .3
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The CIO seeks a unit composed of all production and maintenance
employees at the Employer's Auburn, Nebraska, plant, excluding
3 At the hearing, the Employer contended that the Board is without jurisdiction to deter-
mine the issues raised in these proceedings for the reason that, at the date of the filing of
its petition, the CIO was not in compliance with the filing requirements of Section 9 (f),
(g), and (h) of the Act Because our official records indicate that the CIO is now in full
compliance with the Section of the Act hereinabove mentioned , the Employer 's contention
is hereby rejected
BAR-TACK MANUFACTURING CO., LTD. 205*
office employees and supervisors .4 The AFL and the Employer, on
the other hand, while agreeing with the composition of the unit, take
the position that the appropriate unit includes employees at both the
Employer's Auburn and Otoe, Nebraska, plants .5
The Employer's operations are distributed between 2 plants, one
of which is located in Auburn and the other in Otoe s The Auburn
plant, which is located about 35 miles from Otoe, Nebraska, employs
about 80 production and maintenance employees; the plant at Otoe,
at the time it temporarily discontinued operations, employed
approximately 59 such employees.7
The activities of the Employer at both plants are governed by one
over-all management and personnel policy,8 formulated by the Em-
ployer at its main office in Nebraska City and effectuated by a general
partner who directs the operations of both plants through close per-
sonal contact. In line with its policy of centralized control, the Em-
ployer has established a well integrated operational system. It ap-
pears from the record that all material is cut at the Auburn plant and
then transported by an independent trucking concern to the Otoe
plant where it is sewed. The record further reveals that wage rates
and pay dates are uniform for all employees; that the employees have
the same general working hours; that there is a single bank account
and accounting system for both plants; and that, while the Employer
does not provide transportation for its employees directly from one
plant to the next, it does operate a bus between its main office and each
plant which its employees are at liberty to ride without cost. Further-
more, the record shows that transfers of employees between the two
plants occur according to the needs of the Employer and the desires of
the employees themselves. It further appears that there has been no
history of collective bargaining among the employees at either of the
Employer's two plants.
We believe therefore that, in view of the small size of the Employer's
operations, the centralized control of personnel and operations, the
4 The CIO asserts that since the Employer 's Otoe plant was not in operation at the time
of the hearing, the only appropriate unit is one limited to employees at the Auburn plant.
5 At the hearing the AFL amended its petition with respect to the description of the
unit sought herein by substituting the words "all production and maintenance employees"
for the words , "inspectors and sewing operators engaged in production "
6 The Employer 's central office is located in Nebraska City which is about 20 miles equi-
distant from the Otoe and Auburn plants.
T On August 31, 1947, the Employer closed its plant at Otoe and transferred about 25
of the Otoe employees to its Auburn plant . The balance were laid off temporarily subject
to recall when the Otoe plant reopened . At the hearing , the Employer declared that it
expected to reopen the Otoe plant within 2 weeks with a staff of approximately 35
employees and an anticipated complement of 60 employees . Since the hearing date, we
have been advised administratively that, on or about February 12, 1948 , the Employer
recommenced operations at its Otoe plant.
8 The hiring of new employees at the Otoe and Auburn plants is done by the local plant
supervisors in accordance with recommendations from the central office.
206 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
similarity of hours and wages, and the considerable degree to which
contacts occur among employees in both plants, the employees at the
two Nebraska plants involved herein have sufficient community of
interest to be treated as a single unit for the purposes of collective
bargaining.9
We find that all the production and maintenance employees at the
Employer's plants at Otoe and Auburn, Nebraska, but excluding office
employees and supervisors, constitute a unit appropriate for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of
the Act.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION 10
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining with Bar-Tack Manufacturing Co., Ltd.,
Nebraska City, Nebraska , 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 Seventeenth Region , and subject to Sections 203.61
and 203.62 of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-
Series 5, among the 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 , but excluding those employees who have since
quit or been discharged for cause and have not been rehired or rein-
stated prior to the date of the election , and also excluding employees
on strike who are not entitled to reinstatement , to determine whether
they desire to be represented by Amalgamated Clothing Workers of
America, C. I. 0., or by United Garment Workers of America, A. F. L.,
for the purposes of collective bargaining , or by neither.
CHAIRMAN HERZOG took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Direction of Election.
'Matte), of Thomaston Cotton Mills , Griffin Division , 66 N. L. R. B. 731 ; Matter of
American Yain and Processing Co, 59 N . L. R B. 1357; Matter of French Broad Electmic
Membership Corporation , 75 N L R B. 86
10 Any participant in the election herein may , upon its prompt request to , and approval
thereof by , the Regional Director , have its name removed from the ballot.