Bell Industries, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 30, 1962

139 N.L.R.B. 629 (N.L.R.B. 1962)

DIXIE BELLE MILLS, INC., ETC. 629
inatory discharge to the date of offer of reinstatement , less their net earnings during
said period, the backpay to be computed on a quarterly basis in the manner estab-
lished by the Board in F . W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289.
General Counsel in his "Proposed Recommendations" (General Counsel Exhibit
No. 1) requests that the recommended order include an award of interest on back-
pay. This is for the Board to determine as a matter of policy and the Trial Ex-
aminer as of the date of this recommended report is aware of no Board Order
awarding interest.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The business operations of Respondent constitute and affect trade, traffic, and
commerce among the several States within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act.
2. Airco Employees Association , Inc., and United Steelworkers of America, AFL-
CIO, are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.72
3. By interfering with, restraining , and coercing its employees in the exercise of
rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, Respondent has engaged in and is engaging
in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 ( a)( I) of the Act.
4. By forming, assisting , interfering , and dominating the administration of Airco,
and by recognizing and entering into a contract which provides for a dues-checkoff
provision and by according continuing effect to its contract with said Airco, Re-
spondent has engaged in and is engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning
of Section 8(a)( I) and (2) of the Act.
5. By discriminating with regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Thomas
Curry and Ray E. Richburg , Respondent discouraged membership in United Steel-
workers of America, AFL-CIO, and committed unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8(a) (3) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
72 N L N B v Standard Coil Products Co., Inc ., 224 F. 2d 465 , 467-469 ( C.A. 1), cert.
denied 350 U S. 902
Dixie Belle Mills, Inc., A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of Bell Indus-
tries, Inc. and Textile Workers Union of America , AFL-CIO-
CIL, Petitioner. Case No. 10-RC-5149. October 30, 1963
DECISION ON REVIEW AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
On February 15, 1962, Walter C. Phillips, the Regional Director
for the Tenth Region, issued a Decision and Order in the above-
entitled proceeding, dismissing the petition on the ground that the
unit requested was inappropriate and the Petitioner had specifically
disclaimed any desire to proceed in a larger unit. Thereafter, pursuant
to Section 102.67 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as
amended, the Petitioner filed with the Board a timely request for
review of such Decision and Order on the ground that the Regional
Director's findings were in error and that, in the circumstances of this
case, the requested unit, limited to a single plant, is appropriate. The
Employer filed a statement in opposition to the request for review.
On March 8, 1962, the Board by telegraphic order granted the re-
quest for review because of the factual and policy issues raised. There-
after, the Petitioner filed a brief supporting its unit contention and the
Employer filed a brief in opposition thereto.
The Board has considered the entire record with respect to the
issues under review, including the positions of the parties as set forth
139 NLRB No. 61.
630 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
in the request for review, the opposition thereto, and their briefs, and
makes the following findings :
There is no bargaining history for any of the plants involved
herein.' The Petitioner requested a unit of all production and mainte-
nance employees at the Employer's manufacturing plant and ware-
house located at Calhoun, Georgia. The Employer contended that the
only appropriate unit must also include the approximately 1,100 em-
ployees of Belcraft Chenilles, Inc., another wholly owned subsidiary
of Bell Industries, Inc., with 5 mills and several warehouses located
at Dalton, Georgia, about 20 miles from Calhoun? No union is seeking
to represent the more comprehensive unit. The Regional Director
found the single-plant unit sought by the Petitioner inappropriate
based on the integration of operations. We do not agree.
The evidence set forth in the Regional Director's decision amply
supports his conclusion that, although they are separate corporate en-
tities, Bell and its wholly owned subsidiaries, Dixie Belle and
Belcraft, are operated as a single enterprise and constitute a single em-
ployer under the Act. This single-employer determination, how-
ever, does not establish that only an employerwide or multiplant unit
is appropriate . For the factors which are relevant in identifying the
breadth of an employer's operation are not conclusively determinative
of the scope of an appropriate unit.
It appears that the operations are integrated insofar as they involve
executive , managerial , engineering, or service activities, such as
management planning; procurement and sales; coordination and al-
location of design, materials, and equipment; personnel and account-
ing services , etc. It is these functions upon which the Regional Di-
rector, and now our dissenting colleague, rely primarily in reaching
his conclusion. On the other hand, both intermediate and immediate
supervision of the Dixie Belle plant are separate from that of other
plants of Bell. The day-to-day operations of each are the responsibil-
ity of different vice presidents of Bell, and each plant has its own
assistant personnel director who handles such matters as interviewing,
hiring, promoting, and firing employees for that plant.
1 A Board-directed election was held on December 15, 1955, in the multiplant unit urged
by the Employer here but did not result in the selection of a bargaining representative
and no collective bargaining ensued Belcraft Chenilles, Inc, Case No. 10-RC-3256, not
published in NLRB volumes That proceeding , therefore, cannot qualify as bargaining
history.
2 The scope of the unit in Case No. 10-RC-3256 was pursuant to the agreement of the
parties and hence is not controlling. See Raleigh Coca - Cola Bottling Works, 80 NLRB 768,
770. In these circumstances these is no merit in the Employer' s contention that changed
circumstances must be shown to have occurred since the earlier election to support the
Petitioner 's present unit position.
Nor is the scope of the Board' s Order in the prior unfair labor practice proceeding
(Cases Nos 10-CA-2443 and 10-CA-2472) relevant to the unit question raised here.
For, there is no indication that the issues therein encompassed a unit determination and,
in any event , the proceeding was confined to an enforcement decree on a settlement
stipulation.
DIXIE BELLE MILLS, INC., ETC. 631
In addition, functionally the plants are substantially separate op-
erations. Thus, while Dixie Belle and Belcraft both manufacture
textiles, each is primarily engaged in producing its own type of prod-
uct. Where they do produce a common or related product, the alloca-
tion of orders is made at the management planning level and the
product is later assembled or finished rather than integrated in the
manufacturing process. Even in the few instances where the manu-
facturing operations of the plants are devoted to the production of a
single item, there is no interchange of plant employees and any inter-
change which does occur is solely in the transportation of the items be-
ing processed.' Although the Employer asserts, in its brief in support
of the Regional Director's findings, that seniority is not lost upon
permanent transfer between plants, the Regional Director found that
such transfers occur only infrequently and that no seniority roster was.
in fact, maintained.
A single-plant unit, being one of the unit types listed in the statute
as appropriate for bargaining purposes,4 is presumptively appro-
priate.5 Therefore, unless such plant unit has been so effectively
merged into a more comprehensive unit by bargaining history, or is
so integrated with another as to negate its identity's it is an appro-
priate unit even though another unit, if requested, might also be
appropriate. Moreover, even assuming that the unit urged by the
Employer and found by the Regional Director here may be the most
appropriate unit, this does not establish it as the only appropriate
one. It has not been the Board's policy to compel labor organiza-
tions to seek representation in the most comprehensive grouping, or
indeed in any larger unit, unless an appropriate unit compatible with
that requested does not exist. Therefore, the crucial question in
each case is whether the unit requested is appropriate? The facts
The fact that the Employer's truckdrivers do, in the normal course of their duties,
transport material and finished products between the various plants and warehouses of
the Employer, as well as to and from other consignees, does not destroy the separate
identities of the various operations. Nor does the fact that the parent corporation owns
all of the machinery and, through a machine shop located at Dalton, Georgia, occasionally
installs, removes, or makes certain repairs on machinery at Calhoun, create a degree of
integration inconsistent with the separately identifiable operation of the plant. Under
these circumstances, the exclusion of evidence as to the extent of the services rendered
to the Calhoun plant was not prejudicial.
6 Section 9 (b) of the Act.
6 See Temco Aircraft Corporation, 121 NLRB 1085, 1088, and cases cited therein
6 See Straits Aggregate it Equipment Corp. and Rogers City Cement Products, Inc. 133
NLRB 108.
7See E. H. Koester Bakery Co, Inc, 136 NLRB 1006; Ballentine Packing Company,
Inc., 132 NLRB 923, 925. We reject the Employer's contention that a unit finding con-
sistent with the scope of the petition places undue reliance upon the extent of the Union's
organization contrary to the limitations of Section 9(c) (5) of the Act. That section only
precludes the Board from giving controlling weight to this consideration and does not
arise where, as here, the unit finding is supported by factors wholly unrelated to the
Petitioner's extent of organization. (See Western Light it Telephone Company, Inc., 129
NLRB 719, 722; Sav-On Drugs, Inc., 138 NLRB 1032, footnote 4.) The scope of a unit
designated in a union's petition does not necessarily indicate the extent of its organiza-
tion. But even if a petitioning union 's proposal is, in part, based upon the extent of Its
632 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
here do not reveal such a degree of integration or merger of opera-
tions as would require rejection of a request for a single-plant unit.
In view of the foregoing and the entire record, especially the degree
of autonomy in the operations at the plant of Dixie Belle, Calhoun,
Georgia, the lack of a substantial interchange of employees between
the Dixie Belle production and maintenance operations and those
at any of the Be]craft plants at Dalton, Georgia, the geographical
separation of the Calhoun operation from Dalton, the absence of
any bargaining history, and the fact that no labor organization seeks
to represent a multiplant unit, we find that in the circumstances of
this case the single-plant unit requested by the Petitioner will "as-
sure to employees the fullest freedom in exercising the rights guar-
anteed by this Act," and is, therefore, appropriate."
Accordingly, the following employees of the Employer constitute
a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within
the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act :
All production and maintenance employees employed by the Em-
ployer in its Calhoun, Georgia, operations, including truckdrivers
and plant clerical employees, but excluding all office clerical em-
ployees, professional employees, guards, and all supervisors as de-
fined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
MEMBER RODGERS, dissenting :
The Employer herein, Dixie Belle Mills, Inc., operates a mill and
warehouse in Calhoun, Georgia. Belcraft Chenilles, Inc., operates
five mills and several warehouses in Dalton, Georgia, a scant 20 miles
from Calhoun. Both of these companies manufacture chenille prod-
ucts and are wholly owned subsidiaries of Bell Industries, Inc. The
Regional Director found, which finding is not disputed, that Dixie
Belle and Belcraft constitute a single employer and, in view of the
substantial integration of their operations, that a unit of production
and maintenance employees at the Calhoun operation alone was not
an appropriate unit for the purposes of collective bargaining. Ac-
cordingly, he dismissed the Union's petition. The Regional Director
cited relevant Board precedent in support of his holding 9
In spite of the overwhelming amount of evidence showing an un-
commonly high degree of integration between these related operations,
organizational efforts , it does not follow that such a unit is necessarily defective or that
in designating that unit as appropriate the Boai d is thereby giving any, much less con-
trolling , weight to the union 's extent of organization ( See E H Koester Bakery Co,
Inc , supra , at footnote 16.)
6 See American Linen Supply Co ., Inc, 129 NLRB 993. Accord Sav-On-Drug8, Inc.,
supra, and Quaker City Life Insurance Company, 134 NLRB 960.
6 Barber-Colman Company, 130 NLRB 478, 479 , Brown Engineering Company, Inc., 123
NLRB 1619; Melrose Hostiesy Mills , Inc., 114 NLRB 1166, S. G. Tilden, Inc., 129 NLRB
1096; National Welders Supply Company, Inc., 129 NLRB 514, 516.
J. J. HAGERTY, INC. 633
which remains uncontroverted,10 without even attempting to distin-
guish or overrule the cases relied upon by the Regional Director, my
colleagues have found that a unit confined to the employees of the Cal-
houn operation is appropriate. I cannot agree.
In agreement with the Regional Director, I find that the unit sought
by the Petitioner is inappropriate, and as, in any event, the Regional
Director's decision was not "clearly erroneous"-the applicable review
standard in this case 11-I would dismiss the petition.
MEMBER LEEDOM took no part in the consideration of the above De-
cision on Review and Direction of Election.
10 The machinery of all of the plants is owned by Bell ; the purchasing of all major
materials is done at Dalton, in Bell's name ; all the plants share materials without regard
to where they are stored ; the manufacturing operations of all the plants are determined
and controlled by the same committee ; orders may be filled by any of the plants , without
regard to where or with whom they are placed ; operations are determined by the com-
mittee in such a manner as to equalize employment between the various plants ; Items
manufactured at one plant may be shipped to another plant for finishing , are there com-
bined with items manufactured in other plants , and may be stored at, or shipped from,
any of the warehouses ; both companies use the same trucks ; both companies have the
same officers and the same selling agent ; all moneys received are payable to Bell which
furnishes both companies with sufficient money for expenses ; all invoicing for both com-
panies is done at Dalton ; engineering for all plants is directed by the same personnel,
located at Dalton ; both companies have a common auditor ; the designers of both com-
panies work together ; all patterns for both companies are made in Dixie Belle 's pattern-
making machine in Calhoun ; one machine shop services all plants ; there is some inter-
change of equipment ; a single research chemist services all plants ; a uniform labor rela-
tions policy for all plants is established by a single committee , and is administered by a
single person , the personnel director , who is an employee of Belcraft, but who is respon-
sible for the labor relations of both companies ; the same company magazine is distributed
to, and carries news of, the employees of both companies ; all plants have identical train-
ing programs ; there are a total of 68 job classifications , of which 48 are common to both
companies ; all employees have the same insurance benefits and are covered under a single
insurance policy ; seniority is transferrable to either company ; the personnel director
establishes uniform hiring standards for all plants ; applicants for employment may be
interviewed by one company for employment with the other ; a uniform wage scale is in
effect -at all plants ; there is a constant interchange of employees between the two com-
panies ; all payrolls and W-2 forms are prepared in, and all paychecks are issued from,
the Dalton office ; both companies use common office machinery ; and surveys of operations,
Including time and motion studies , cover all plants without regard to corporate lines.
11 See the Board 's Rules and Regulations and Statements of Procedure , Series 8, as
amended , Section 102 . 67(c).
J. J. Hagerty , Inc. and Peter Batalias
Nassau and Suffolk Contractors ' Association , Inc. and Garrett
Nagle and Employer-Members of Nassau and Suffolk Con-
tractors ' Association , Inc., Listed in Appendix A, Parties in
Interest
J. J. Hagerty, Inc. and Thomas Eichacker
John C. Peterson Construction Co. and William Herbert Wilkens
Nassau and Suffolk Contractors ' Association Inc. and its Em-
ployer-Members Listed in Appendix "A"; Welfare Fund of
Local 138, International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-
139 NLRB No. 40.