Beaunit Mills, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 8, 1941

33 N.L.R.B. 178 (N.L.R.B. 1941)

In the Matter of BEAUNIT MILLS , INC. and UNITED TEXTILE WORKERS
OF AMERICA , A. F. OF L.
Case No. R-9511.-Decided July 8, 19411
Jurisdiction : clothing manufacturing industry.
Practice and Procedure : petition dismissed where showing by petitioning union
of designation by employees insufficient to raise question concerning repre-
sentation.
Mr. Richard J. Hickey, for the Board.
Mr. John N. Plato ff, of Union City, N. J., for the Company.
Mr. Martin Sher, of Cohoes, N. Y., for the A. F. of L.
Mr. David Jaffe, of New York City, for the C. I. O.
Mrs. Augusta Spaulding, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On February 28, 1941, United Textile Workers. of America, A. F.
of L.; herein called the A. F. of L., filed with the Regional Director
for the Second Region - (New York City) a petition alleging _ that a
question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation
of employees of Beaunit Mills, Inc., Cohoes, New York, herein called
the Company, and requesting an investigation and certification of
representatives pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. On April 11, 1941,
the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, acting
pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the Act and Article III, Section'3, of
National Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 2, as
amended, ordered an investigation and authorized the Regional Di-
rector to conduct it and to provide for an appropriate hearing upon
due notice.
On April 15, 1941, the Regional Director issued a notice of hear-
ing, copies of which were duly served upon the Company, the A. F.
of L.,` and Textile Workers Union of America, C. I. 0., herein called
the C. I. 0., a labor organization claiming to represent employees
33 N. L. R. B., No. 45.
178
BEAUN'IT MILLS, INC. ' 179
directly affected by the investigation. Pursuant to notice, a hearing.
was held • on April 28, 1941, at Cohoes, New York, before Martin
Raphael, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Chief Trial
Examiner. The Board, the Company, and the C. I. O. were repre-
sented by counsel, and the A. F. of L. by its representative. All
participated in the hearing. The C. I. O. moved, to dismiss. the peti-
tion on the ground (1) that charges filed by the A. F. of L. and
pending before the Board constituted a bar to this proceeding and,
(2) that the A. F. of L. did not have sufficient membership among
the Company's employees to sustain the proceeding. The Trial Ex-
aminer did not rule on this motion. For reasons which appear in
Section III, below, the, motion is. granted. Full opportunity to be
heard, to examine and. cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evi-
dence bearing on the issues was afforded all parties. During. the course
.of the hearing, the Trial Examiner made several rulings on other
motions and on objections to the admission of evidence. The Board
has reviewed the rulings of the Trial-Examiner and finds that no
prejudicial'errors were committed. ' The rulings are hereby affirmed.
On May 5, 1941, the C. I. O. filed a request for oral argument
before the Board at Washington, D. C. On May 7, 1941, the Board
denied this request and, in lieu thereof, granted permission to all
parties to file briefs with the Board in support of their respective
contentions. On May 13, 1941, the C. 1.,0. filed a brief which the
Board has considered.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE,COMPANY
Beaunit Mills, Inc.,- is a corporation engaged in the manufacture,
sale, and distribution of underwear, knitted and woven. rayon, and
other fabrics. The Company has its principal office in New York
City. It operates plants at Cohoes, New York, Beverly, New Jersey,
and elsewhere. The plant at Cohoes, New York, is the only plant
involved in this proceeding.
The raw. materials purchased by the Company for the plant consist
principally of rayon and other yarns. During the period from
July 1, 1940, to December 31, 1940, the value of such raw materials
was in excess of $500,000, about 75 per cent of which came to the plant
from points outside the State of New York. During the same period,
about 50 per cent of the products finished at the plant were shipped
from the plant to points outside the State of New York. The value
of such shipments exceeded $200,000. The Company admits that it is
engaged in interstate commerce.
450122-42-vol. 33--13
180' ` DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
United Textile Workers of America is a labor organization affiliated
with the American Federation of Labor.
Textile Workers Union of America is a labor organization affiliated
with the' Congress of Industrial Organizations.
These organizations admit" to membership production and main-
tenance employees of the Company.
III. THE ALLEGED QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
In July 1937, and again in July 1938, the C. I. O. and the Company
entered into a contract covering production and maintenance em-
ployees at the Company's plant. At the-termination of each contract
there was a strike. In July 1939 the Company and the C. I. O.
entered into a third contract covering the same, employees. This
contract provided for recognition of the C. I. O. as sole bargaining
agent for such employees, for a closed shop, for the settlement of
grievances by arbitration, for neither stoppage of work nor shut-down
during the life of the contract, and for automatic renewal of the
contract from year to year after June 1, 1940, unless terminated by
60 days' notice.
During the fall of 1939 employees. in. the weaving and winding
departments of the plant presented grievances to the Company, al-
leging violation of.the terms of the contract in respect to wages and
work.load. The Company and the C. I. O. conferred respecting
these grievances. In April 1940 the A. F. of L. began organizing
employees in the weaving and winding departments. Neither the
Company nor the C. I.' O. gave 60 days' notice to terminate their
contract. On May 27, 1940, the A. F. of L. filed a petition for inves-
tigation and certification with the Regional Director,, alleging that
employees in the weaving and winding departments at the plant con-
stituted a unit appropriate for collective bargaining.
In May and June 1940 some employees in the weaving and winding
departments, members of the A. F. of L., stopped work. The Com-
pany discharged them. Other employees, members of the A. F. of L.,
were subsequently discharged by the Company. On July 10, 1940,
the petition of the A. F. of L. was dismissed without hearing., On
August 1, 1940, the A. F. of L; filed charges, and on November 26,
1940, amended charges, alleging that the Company had discrimina-
I A representative of the A. 'F. of L . testified that he was advised by the Regional Office
that the proposed unit was inappropriate for bargaining and that the contract between the
Company and the C. I. O. constituted a bar to an investigation of representatives at that
time.
BEAUNIT MILLS, INC. 181
torily discharged members of the A. F. of L. in violation of
Section 8 (3)` of the Act.2
On February 25, 1941, the A. F. of L. asked the Company to -bar-
gain with the A. F. of L. as sole bargaining agent for production
and maintenance employees at the plant. The Company, having
recognized the C. I. O. as sole bargaining agent for such employees
under its contract, with the C. I. 0., refused to recognize the A. F.
of L. until the A. F. of L., was duly certified, by the Board. The
A. F. of L., accordingly, filed the petition in this proceeding. Sub-
sequently, the C. I. O. notified the Company of, its intention to termi-
nate its contract with the Company on June 1, 1941, and requested
conferences for the negotiation of a new contract. Such conferences
were pending at the time of the hearing.
All regular employees at the plant, in accordance with the contract
between the Company and the C. I. 0., were members of the C. I. O.
at the time of the hearing. The C. L.O. does not seek the certifica-
tion of the Board in this proceeding, but desires that the petition
of the A: F. of L. be dismissed.
In support, of its contention to represent employees in the unit,.
the A. F: of L. submitted to the Regional, Director 'an affidavit.
stating that because of the dismissal of A. F. of L. members no cards
had recently been signed by employees of the Company, but that a
majority -of workers now employed at the plant had asked the A. F.
of L. to represent them for collective bargaining. At the hearing
A. F. of L. witnesses testified that employees at the plant had been
personally interviewed and that a majority had signified a desire
to vote for the A. F. of L. in an election.3 In addition to such
evidence the A. F. of L. submitted the authorization cards, 106 in
number, .which it had filed in support of its previous petition on
behalf of employees in the weaving and winding departments. These
cards bore dates between April 14 and June 30', 1940. A statement
prepared by the Regional Director and introduced at the hearing
discloses that 94 of these, cards bore apparently genuine signatures
of employees on the Company's pay roll of June 10,,1940. At the
hearing, at the request of the C. I. 0., the Trial Examiner checked
these cards against the Company's pay roll of April 26, 1941. The
Trial Examiner found that 40 of these cards bore names of employees
upon such pay roll' and that 4 other cards bore surnames which
appeared upon the pay roll but that the given names on the cards
2 On June 20 , 1941 ; after investigation , the Regional Director refused to issue a com-
plaint based on these charges . The A. F. of L. has not requested review of this refusal.
"Witnesses for the A. F. of L. testified that the surveillance of the C. I. O. and fear
for their jobs prevented employees from signing cards and the signing of cards had therefore
been discontinued.
182 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and the pay, roll did not correspond. There are 463 employees in
the plant unit.
We are of the opinion that, under all the circumstances of this
case, the A. F. of L. showing of designation by the employees is not.
sufficient to raise a question concerning representation.
-We find that no question has arisen concerning the representation
of employees of the Company., Accordingly, the petition of the
A. F. of L. will be dismissed.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
No question has arisen concerning the representation of employees
of Beaunit Mills, Inc., Cohoes, New York, within the meaning of
Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act.
ORDER
Upon. the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusion
of law, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the
petition for investigation and certification filed by United Textile
Workers of America, A. F. of L., be, and it hereby is, dismissed.