Benjamin & Johnes, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 4, 1961

133 N.L.R.B. 768 (N.L.R.B. 1961)

768 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
[The Board set aside the election held on January 26, 1961, among
the employees of Myrna Mills, Incorporated, in the unit heretofore
found appropriate.]
[Text of Direction of Second Election omitted from publication.]
MEMBER RODGERS took no part in the consideration of the above
Supplemental Decision, Order, and Direction of Second Election.
[See page 1740 for Hearing Officer's Report.]
Benjamin & Johnes, Inc. and Local 166, International Ladies
Garment Workers Union , AFL-CIO , Petitioner . Case No.
22-RC-800. October 4, 1961
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND DIRECTION
OF ELECTION
On July 1, 1960, the Board issued its Decision and Order' in the
above-entitled proceeding wherein it found that a unit of cutters and
spreaders, requested by Petitioner, was not an appropriate unit for
collective-bargaining purposes, and dismissed the petition therein.
On July 13, 1960, the Petitioner moved for reconsideration of the
Board's decision, alleging that the Board's finding that the cutters
and spreaders did not exercise the skill of "marking" or "preparation
of markers" was contrary to fact, and that the Board's application of
craft standards to this case was in error since these standards were
applicable only to severance cases and there is no question of severance
in this proceeding. On November 27, 1960, the Board granted recon-
sideration upon the Petitioner's motion and remanded the case to the
Regional Director for further hearing on the question of appropriate
unit. Hearing on remand was held from December 14 through 29,
1960, before Christopher J. Hoey, hearing officer. The hearing officer's
rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are
hereby affirmed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this proceeding to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and
Members Fanning and Brown].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
As indicated in our earlier decision the Petitioner seeks a craft unit
of cutters and spreaders,2 or, alternatively, a unit of cutting depart-
Not published in NLRB volumes.
a Although spreaders constitute a separate classification of employees and are normally
considered as cutter trainees , all of the cutters here employed do spreading , and the
parties refer to them as "cutters and spreaders."
133 NLRB No. 87.
BENJAMIN & JOHNES, INC. 769
ment employees. The Employer contends that only an overall unit of
production and maintenance employees is appropriate.
The Employer operates a factory at Newark, New Jersey, where it
is engaged in the manufacture of ladies' foundation garments. The
various departments of the plant are located in a five-story building;
the cutting department is located by itself on the fifth floor of this
building. All cutters and spreaders, and the stock clerk, work in
this department under the supervision of the cutting foreman. They
are paid on a "time" basis while the other employees in the plant are
paid on a "piecework" basis. The cutters and spreaders begin work
at a different hour than do the other employees, and punch timeclocks
at a separate area.
In our previous decision, we dismissed the petition herein because
on the record then before us we concluded that the cutters, although
exercising the traditional cutting skills and having interests not shared
by employees outside the cutting department, performed no "prepara-
tion of markers" or "marking." We observed that according to cer-
tain usage a cutter is not considered as a craft employee unless he
also engaged in such "marking" function, which is accepted as a
highly skilled occupation in itself.
The record now before us discloses that our earlier conclusion was
in error, and that the cutters and spreaders herein sought by the
Petitioner do in fact perform the highly skilled function of "prepara-
tion of markers" or "marking." In view thereof, and in the absence
of other evidence in the record that would militate against such find-
ings, it is apparent that the cutters and spreaders constitute a func-
tionally distinct and homogeneous group of highly skilled craft
employees with interests separate and apart from those of other pro-
duction and maintenance employees. As skilled craft employees they
constitute a separate appropriate unit.'
The Petitioner, however, has indicated that although it is willing to
represent the cutters and spreaders as a craft unit, it prefers to repre-
sent all employees in the cutting department which it contends is an
appropriate departmental unit. The record before us discloses that
in the garment industry cutting department employees, because of
their essentially different skills, their separate interests and super-
vision, have traditionally been organized on a departmental basis,
and that the Board has in the past recognized their separate interests
and found that these interests entitled them to separate representation."
In view of the foregoing, and on the record as a whole, we find that
the following employees constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes
3 Rothschild-Kaufman Co, Inc, d/b/a Taylored Slacks of Hollywood, 98 NLRB 353,
354; Sir James, Inc, 97 NLRB 1572, 1573 . Cf. Chalet , Inc, 107 NLRB 109, 111.
4 Ibid.
624067-62-vol . 133--50
770 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the
Act :
All cutting department employees, including cutters and spreaders,
and the stock clerk,' but excluding office clerical employees, profes-
sional employees, all other employees, guards, and supervisors as de-
fined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
6 We include the stock clerk , Rossi , as the record shows that he works only in the cutting
department in constant contact with the cutters and spreaders , and occasionally does both
cutting and spreading . We find that he has a community of interest with the other em-
ployees in the cutting department . See Rothschild-Kaufman Co., Inc., supra , at page 354.
Great Bay Chemical & Plastics , Inc. and Local 626, International
Chemical Workers' Union, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No.
22-IBC-1195. October 5, 1961
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND DIRECTION
OF ELECTION
On September 6, 1961, the Board issued a Decision and Direction of
Election 1 in the above-entitled proceeding in which it held that the
employees employed at the time of the hearing constituted a sub-
stantial and representative segment of the complement to be employed
in the future and that an election at this time would not be pre-
mature. Subsequently, the Employer made a request to delay the
election until December 12, 1961, on the ground that the planned con-
solidation of the Employer and Regency Plastics, Inc.,2 would not be
completed until December 1, 1961. This request was concurred in
by the Intervenor, Local 239, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
who had represented the employees of Regency Plastics, but was
opposed by the Petitioner.
When the original hearing was held in this case, it appeared that
the consolidation of the Employer and Regency Plastics, Inc., would
be completed by October 1, 1961, and at the time of the original De-
cision and Direction of Election it appeared that many, if not most,
of the former employees of Regency would be employed at the Em-
ployer's new plant at Fast Brunswick, New Jersey, on that date. It
now appears that the work force at East Brunswick still is composed
of only 35 to 40 employees, and that the 57 employees of Regency
have been placed on "furlough" until the new East Brunswick plant
is ready for operation. In view of the fact that the employees of
1 Not published in NLRB volumes.
2 Regency Plastics , Inc., is a subsidiary of Cary Chemical Corporation which is also the
parent corporation of the Employer in this case.
133 NLRB No. 99.