B.V.D. Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 30, 1940

28 N.L.R.B. 781 (N.L.R.B. 1940)

In the Matter of B. V. D. CORPORATION and WAREHOUSE EMPLOYEES
UNION, LOCAL No. 22102 (A. F. L.)
Case No: R-170. Decided December 30, 1940
Jurisdiction : underwear manufacturing industry.
Practice and Procedure : petition dismissed where no appropriate unit within
scope of petition.
Mr. Herbert 0. Eby, for the Board.
Mr. Ralph A. Lind, of New York City, for 'the Company.
Mr. S. Robert Levinson, of Baltimore, Md., for Local 570.
Edelman &,
'
Ehudin, by Mr. Jacob J. Edelman, of Baltimore, Md.,
for the Amalgamated.
Mr. Louis Cokin, 6f counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On September 20, 1940, Warehouse Employees Union, Local No.
22102 (A. F. L.),1 herein called Local 22102, filed with the Regional
Director fQr the Fifth Region (Baltimore, Maryland) a petition
alleging that a question affecting commerce had arisen concerning
the representation of employees of B. V. D. Corporation, Baltimore,
Maryland, herein called the Company, and requesting an investiga-
tion and certification of representatives pursuant to Section 9 (c) of
the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act.
On October 21, 1940, 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 2, as amended, ordered an investigation and
authorized the Regional Director to conduct it and to provide for an
appropriate hearing upon due notice.
'This union was at that time known as Warehouse Employees Union Local 22102. On
December 10, 1940, Local 22102 notified the Board that its designation had been, changed
to Local No. 570 but it is unnecessary to treat the issue of change of designation in view
of our dismissal of the petition herein. -
28 N. L. R. B., No. 120.
781
782 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On October 28, 1940, the Regional Director issued a notice of hear-
ing, copies of which were duly served upon the Company, Local
22102, and Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, herein called
the Amalgamated, a labor organization claiming to represent em-
ployees directly affected by the investigation. On November 8, 1940,
the Regional Director issued a notice of , postponement of hearing.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held on November 25, 1940, at Bal-
timore, Maryland, before William B. Barton, the Trial Examiner
duly designated by the Board. The Company, Local 22102, and the
Amalgamated were represented by counsel and 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 the parties. During the course of the hearing the Trial Examiner
made several rulings on 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.
Pursuant to notice duly served upon the parties, a hearing for the
purpose of oral argument was held before the Board on December 10,
1940, in Washington, D. C. The Company, Local 22102, and the
Amalgamated appeared by counsel and participated in the argu-
ment. The Amalgamated also 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
B. V. D. Corporation is a Delaware corporation with- its principal
plant at Baltimore, Maryland, where it is engaged in the business of
manufacturing pajamas, lounge robes, sport shirts, union shirts, cot-
ton shirts, drawers, and shorts. During 1939 the Company sold fin-
ished products valued in excess of $2,000,000, over $1,950,000 worth of
such products being shipped by it to points outside the State of Mary-
land. All of the raw materials used by the Company are shipped to
it from points outside the State of Maryland. The Company admits
that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6)
and (7) of the Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Warehouse Employees Union, Local No. 22102, is a labor organiza-'
tion affiliated with the American Federation of Labor. It admits to
membership all warehouse employees of the Company, excluding
supervisory and clerical employees.
B. -V. D. 'CORPORATION 783
Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America is a labor organiza-
tion affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations. It ad-
mits to membership all production and maintenance employees of the
Company, including shipping and receiving employees, but exclud-
ing clerical and supervisory employees.
III. THE APPIIOPRIATE UNIT
Local 22102 urges that all warehouse employees of the Company,
excluding supervisory and clerical employees, constitute a unit appro-
priate for the purposes of collective bargaining. The Amalgamated
contends that the petition should be dismissed because all the pro-
duction and maintenance employees of the Company, including ware-
house employees, but excluding supervisory and clerical employees,
constitute an appropriate bargaining unit.
The Company carries on its manufacturing operations at a plant
located in Baltimore, where it employs approximately 750 persons.
It also maintains a stock and shipping building, located 3 blocks from
its manufacturing plant, from which it ships its finished products. A
representative of the Company testified that the Company maintains
a separate building for shipping its finished products because, due to
an increase in its operations, there is not sufficient space for such work
in its manufacturing plant. He further testified that the Company
considers its stock and shipping department as an integral part of its
manufacturing process. The Company employs approximately 35
employees in its stock and shipping department, 9 of whom work in
the main manufacturing plant.
Local 22102 seeks to represent all of the employees at the stock and
shipping building, plus two of the nine "warehouse" employees at
the manufacturing plant. Local 22102 contends that the "warehouse"
employees should be set up as a separate unit because their interests
differ from those of the other employees, and because they are highly
skilled and require 3 to 4 years to become proficient in their work.
The Amalgamated contends that the employees involved herein are
not warehousemen, that there is no such thing as a warehouse in the
cotton-garment industry,2 and that the functions of the employees
involved herein are those of receiving and shipping clerks. The em-
ployees in question stock the Company's products in bins and then
prepare the products for shipment pursuant to orders received by
the Company. We find that these employees are stock and shipping
clerks.
2 The representative of the Amalgamated testified that the Amalgamated has contracts
with aproximately 85 manufacturers in this industry, all of which include employees per-
forming functions similar to those under consideration here , namely, the shipping and
receiving employees. -
784 DECISIONS .OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On November -29, 1939, an election was held at the plant and ware-
house of the Company, pursuant to an agreement between the Amalga-
mated and the Company, resulting in a vote of 329 for and 362
against the Amalgamated. The stock and shipping employees were
eligible and voted in this election. The Amalgamated had prior to
this election negotiated with the Company on behalf of all the em-
ployees but no collective contract eventuated. Although the Amalga-
mated lost the election, it has since that time dealt with the Company.
As a result of these negotiations between the Amalgamated and the
Company, the employees in the stock and shipping department have
received increases in pay and grievances have been settled in their
behalf. The Amalgamated has a shop committee in the plant,
including a representative selected by the "warehouse" employees.
Local 22102 and the Amalgamated each presented applications
signed by a majority of the stock and shipping employees. On all
the facts in this case, we are of the opinion that the unit urged by
Local 22102 is not appropriate for the purposes of collective bargain-
ing and we so find.
IV. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
Since the bargaining unit sought by the petitioner is not appropri-
ate, as stated in Section III above, we find that no question has been
raised concerning the-representation of employees of the Company in
an appropriate bargaining unit.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire
record in the case, the Board makes the following :
CONCLUSION OF LAW
No question concerning representation of employees of B. V. D.
Corporation, Baltimore, Maryland, in a unit which is appropriate for
the purposes of collective bargaining has arisen, 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 orders that the petition for
investigation and certification filed by Warehouse Employees Union,
Local No. 22102 (AFL) be, and it hereby is, dismissed.