Bradley Manufacturing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 21, 1938

4 N.L.R.B. 1117 (N.L.R.B. 1938)

In the Matter of BRADLEY MANUFACTURING COMPANY and TExTnE
WORKERS ORGANIZING COMMITTEE
Case No. R-179.Decided January 21, 1938
Cotton Textile Industry-Investigation , of Representatives : controversy con-
cerning representation of employees ; failure of negotiations for recognition of
union as exclusive representative ; substantial doubt as to majority status-
Unit Appropriate for Collective Bargaining: all employees except clerical and
supervisory ; no controversy as to-Election Ordered
Mr. John T. Mahoney, for the Board.
Swift, Pease, Davidson & Swinson, by Mr. J. Q. Davidson and Mr.
11'. Edward Swinson, and Battle & Smith, by Mr. Willis Battle, all
of Columbus, Ga., for the Company.
Dr. Witherspoon Dodge, of Columbus, Ga., for the Union.
Mr. Richard A. Perkins, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On September 27, 1937, Textile Workers Organizing Committee,
herein called the Union, filed with the Regional Director for the
Tenth Region (Atlanta, Georgia) a petition alleging that a question
affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation of em-
ployees of Bradley Manufacturing Company, Columbus, Georgia,
herein called the Company, and requesting an investigation and cer-
tification of representatives pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. On October
26, 1937, 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 Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 1,
as amended, ordered an investigation and authorized the Regional
Director to conduct it and to provide for an appropriate hearing upon
due notice.
On November 11, 1937, the Regional Director issued a notice of
hearing, copies of which were duly served upon the Company and
upon the Union. Pursuant to the notice, a hearing was held on No-
vember 26, 1937, at Columbus, Georgia, before Paul K. Hennessy,
1117
1118 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board. The Board and
the Company were represented by counsel and the Union by one of
its officials, and all participated in the hearing. Full opportunity to
be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce
evidence bearing on the issues was afforded all parties. During the
course of the hearing the Trial Examiner made 'several rulings on
motions and on objections to the admission of evidence. A brief
was filed on,behalf of the Company. The Board has reviewed the
rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudicial errors
were committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
The Company, a Georgia corporation, operates a single manufac-
turing plant at Columbus, Georgia, producing colored yarn, uphol-
stery, and drapery. Cotton is the principal raw material used. The
mill consumed 6,424 bales in the year ending August 31, 1937. All
of the cotton processed at the mill is purchased in Columbus, Georgia.
The origin of the cotton is not disclosed by the record, but the Com-
pany's president testified that some of it comes from outside Georgia.
The Company uses each week 50 tons of coal obtained from Alabama.
In the year ending August 31, 1937, the Company manufactured
2,600,000 pounds of goods, 90 per cent of which were shipped outside
of Georgia, principally to customers in Tennessee, North Carolina,
Pennsylvania, and New York.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Textile Workers Organizing Committee is a labor organization af-
filiated with the Committee for Industrial Organization, admitting
to its membership all mill production employees of the Company,
excluding clerical and supervisory employees.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
At a meeting between Company ekecutives and Union representa-
tives on August 11, 1937, a Union organizer declared his belief that
the Union represented a majority of the Company's employees, and
discussed the manner in which such supposed majority could be ascer-
tained to the satisfaction of the Company. The Union, however,
would not submit its membership application cards to the Company
for comparison with the Company's pay roll. The Union organizer
asked the Company to agree to a consent election or to a certification
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 1119
of the Union as the representative of the employees without an elec-
tion. The Company stated that the matter was one for decision by
the Board.
In its petition the Union alleged that 275 persons within the ap-
propriate unit were employed by the Company and that of this
number 225 were included within its membership.
We find that a question has arisen concerning representation of
employees of the Company.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION UPON
COMMERCE
We find that the question concerning representation which has
arisen, occurring in connection with the operations of the Company
described in Section I above, has a close, intimate, and substantial
relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and
,tends to lead, to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce
and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
At the hearing all parties seemed to agree that all the employees
of the Company, exclusive of clerical and supervisory employees, con-
stitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining.
We find that all the employees of the Company, excluding clerical
and supervisory employees, constitute a unit appropriate for the
purposes of collective bargaining and that said unit will insure to
employees of the Company the full benefit of their right to self-
organization and collective bargaining and otherwise effectuate the
policies of the Act.
VI. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
At the hearing the Union claimed to represent a majority of the
employees in the appropriate unit, but offered no proof thereof.
We find that the question which has arisen concerning the repre-
sentation of employees can best be resolved by holding an election by
secret ballot to determine whether the employees wish the Union to
represent them.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire
record in the case, the Board makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. A question affecting commerce has arisen concerning the repre-
sentation of employees of Bradley Manufacturing Company, Colum-
bus, Georgia, within the meaning of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6)
and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act.
1120 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. All the employees of the Company, excluding clerical and super-
visory employees, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of
collective bargaining, within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the
National Labor Relations Act.
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 Rela-
tions Act, 49 Stat. 449, and pursuant to Article III, Section 8, of
National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 1, as
amended,
IT IS HEREBY DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation authorized
by the Board to ascertain representatives for collective bargaining
with Bradley Manufacturing Company, Columbus, Georgia, an elec-
tion by secret ballot shall be conducted within fifteen (15) days from
the date of this Direction, under the direction and supervision of the
Regional Director for the Tenth Region, acting in this matter as
agent for the National Labor Relations Board, and subject to Article
III, Section 9 of said Rules and Regulations-Series 1, as amended,
among all the employees of Bradley Manufacturing Company who
were employed by the Company during the pay roll period next
preceding September 27, 1937, excluding clerical and supervisory
employees and those who quit or were discharged for cause between
such date and the date of election, to determine whether or not they
desire to be represented by Textile Workers Organizing Committee
for the purposes of collective bargaining.