Century Mills, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 5, 1938

5 N.L.R.B. 807 (N.L.R.B. 1938)

In the Matter of CENTURY MILLS, INC. and SOUTH JERSEY JOINT
BOARD, OF THE INTERNATIONAL LADIES GARMENT WORKERS UNION
Case No. R-544.-Decided March 5, 1938
Women's and Children's Underga?ment Industry-Investigation of Repre-
sentatives : controversy concerning representation of employees: refusal by em-
ployer to recognize petitioning union as exclusive representative of its employ-
ees-Unit Appropriate for Collective Bargaining: production employees, includ-
ing floor help and learners ; membership in union and participation in strike-
Representatives: proof of choice : union membership cards-Certification of Rep-
?esentatives: upon proof of majority representation.
Mr. Joseph F. Castiello, for the Board.
Mr. M. Herbert Syme, of Philadelphia, Pa., for the Union..
Mr. Herbert L: Worth, of Riverside, N. J., for the Company.
Mr. George Turitz, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On November 2, 1937, the South Jersey Joint Board of the Inter-
national Ladies Garment Workers Union, herein called the Union,
filed with the Regional Director for the Fourth Region (Philadel-
phia, Pennsylvania) a petition alleging that a question affecting com-
merce had arisen concerning the representation of employees of Cen-
tury Mills, Inc., Riverside, New Jersey, 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 November 13, 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, or-
dered an investigation and authorized, the Regional Director to con-
duct it and to provide for an appropriate hearing upon due notice.
On November 23, 1937, the Union filed an amended petition.
On November 30, 1937, the Regional Director issued a notice of
hearing, and on December 8, 1937, he issued a notice of postponement
of hearing, copies of both of which were duly served upon the Com-
807
80535-38--52
808 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
pany and the Union or on their respective attorneys. Pursuant to
the notices, a hearing was held on December 20 and 21, 1937, at
Riverside, New Jersey, before Henry W. Schmidt, Jr., the Trial Ex-
aminer duly designated by the Board. The Board, the Company, and
the Union were represented by counsel and participated in the hear-
ing. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and to 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. 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 the case, the Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Century Mills, Inc., is a New Jersey corporation with its principal
place of business at Riverside, New Jersey. The business of the
Company is the manufacture of women's and children's underwear.
The principal raw materials used by the Company are. cotton and
rayon. It also uses buttons, cotton thread, and elastic. Approxi-
mately 25 per cent of all the raw materials are obtained from outside
the State of New Jersey. The Company ships approximately 95
per cent of its finished product out of the State of New Jersey.
On October 4, 1937, theocompany employed about 175 employees,
of whom approximately 150 were engaged in production.
H. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The International Ladies Garment Workers Union is a labor organ-
ization affiliated with the Committee for Industrial Organization. It
admits to its membership all production employees of the Company,
excluding supervisory employees. When there are two or more locals
of the International Ladies Garment Workers Union in the same city
or locality, engaged in various branches of the same trade, they organ-
ize a joint board, which is made up of delegates from the local unions,
and one of the functions of which is to organize nonunion shops.
The petition in this case was filed by the South Jersey Joint Board
of the International Ladies Garment Workers Union.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Union commenced to organize employees of the Company about
July 1937. When the Union thought a majority of the production
employees had joined it or applied for membership, it approached the
Company and asked that the Union be recognized as the exclusive
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 809
bargaining agent for such employees. The Company refused to grant
this recognition. Thereafter the Union proposed that a consent elec-
tion be held, but the Company refused. Following such refusal, ap-
proximately 100 employees participated in a strike which began on
,October 12. 1937 and which terminated on November 5, 1937, shortly
after the filing of the petition in this case.
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, and has led, to labor disputes burdening and obstructing
commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
In its a.amended petition the Union alleges that "all production
employees, (excluding sales, clerical, maintenance and supervisory
help)" constitute an appropriate unit. At the hearing the Union
and the Company stipulated that the appropriate unit should con-
sist of all the employees of the Company engaged in production,
excluding clerical help (including receiving clerks), supervisory
and maintenance help, and executives.
There is a dispute between the Company and the Union as to
whether five of the employees should be considered as supervisory or
as production employees. Two of such employees, under the direct
supervision of the forelady, carry work from the forelady to the
workers, and report back to the forelady with the finished work;
they also cut elastic and binding, cut garments apart, and supply the
machines with needles and cotton. Two others carry work away
from the binders, under the direct supervision of the forelady; they
also cut labels, bindings and ruffles. We conclude on these facts
that the four employees are production rather than supervisory
workers, and should be included in the bargaining unit. The only
information in the record as to the fifth employee is that he "fixes
driving belts on the power machines and gives out work to the
operators." In the absence of evidence definitely differentiating
his duties and interests from those of the other employees in the
bargaining unit, we think he should be included.
The Company claimed at the hearing that persons who had been
employed by it less than three months should not be included in
the bargaining unit on the ground that it takes about that time for
810
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
a person to become a competent operator, and that until the Com-
pany had had an opportunity to see if they were capable of becom-
ing competent, they were to be considered merely learners and not
employees. We do not agree with this contention. There is no evi-
dence that the Company's business is seasonal in nature, and the,
persons whom the Company termed learners do not appear to have
been employed otherwise than for the ordinary purposes of the
business. A majority of them joined the Union or applied for mem-
bership in it, or at least took part in the strike and received strike
benefits from the Union. The mere fact that the Company may at
some time desire to terminate the employment of some of them does
not justify their exclusion from the bargaining unit.
We find that the employees of the Company engaged in produc-
tion, exclusive of clerical help (including receiving clerks), super-
visory help, maintenance help, and executives, 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 to collective bargaining and
otherwise effectuate the policies of the Act.
VI. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
The Board and the Company stipulated at the hearing that ap-
proximately 150 production employees were employed by the Com-
pany on October 4, 1937. The Company introduced in evidence
a list of 45 production employees who had been hired between
August 1 and October 12, 1937. The list showed that two of the'
45 had been hired after October 4. The record shows, therefore, that
the Company employed approximately 152 production workers on'
October 11, 1937.
The Union introduced in evidence 113 cards which its counsel
stated were Union membership cards l of employees of the Company.
Two of the cards were duplicates of other cards. The business agent
of the Union testified that all the cards were signed in her presence
by persons known to her. She also testified that the first of the
membership cards were signed about July 1937, and that she deliv-
ered the cards to the Board's Regional Office for the Fourth Region
on October 11, 1937. The business agent also testified that all persons
signing membership cards, with one exception, were production em-
ployees. An examination of the cards shows that four are dated
October 12, 1937, and one is dated October 14, 1937. Excluding these
five cards and that of the non-production employee, it appears, on
the basis of the testimony of the Union's business agent, that 105
'The cards were also referred to as application cards The record is not clear as to.
whether employees of the Company joined the Union or merely applied for membership.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 811
production employees signed membership cards on or prior to October
11, 1937.
At the hearing counsel for the Company and its chief witness
checked the membership cards against a pay roll of the Company.
Although counsel for the Company raised the objection that the cards
were not witnessed and that the proof concerning their signing was
"rather dubious", he did not claim that any person whose name ap-
peared on a membership card was not an employee of the Company.
One employee denied that the business agent had been present when
she had signed a membership card, but she admitted the genuineness
of her signature. The Company also pointed out that a number of
persons signing membership cards had not paid initiation fees or
,dues. This fact does not, however, appear to be material. Their
request for membership in the Union indicated a desire to have the
Union act as their representative for collective bargaining.2
During the strike which was called on October 12, 1937, the Union
paid out strike benefits to 87 employees of the Company, at least
78 of whom were among the aforesaid members of, or applicants for
membership in, the Union. From 10 to 15 Union applicants or mem-
bers struck but did not apply for strike benefits.
We conclude on the basis of the foregoing that the evidence suffi-
ciently establishes that on October 11, 1937, a majority of the Com-
pany's employees engaged in production, exclusive of clerical help
(including receiving clerks), supervisory help, maintenance help and
executives, had designated the Union as their representative for the
purposes of collective bargaining. 0
At the hearing the Company stated that it desired to show, by the
testimony of employees who had signed the Union's membership
cards, that they did not desire representation by the Union. Although
the Trial Examiner stated that such testimony was irrelevant, he in-
formed counsel for the Company that he would allow such a showing
to be made. The Company thereupon produced four employees who
testified that although they had signed membership cards of the
Union, they did not want to have anything more to do with it, and
did not want it to represent them for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining. All four of those employees had been given increases in
their pay during and after the strike, in which they had not taken
part, and three of them testified that the representatives of the Com-
pany said they would never permit a union to exist in the plant.
Although some of them stated that they had joined the Union in
order not to be solicited any more by the Union's business agent, it
is clear that their joining was in all cases voluntary. The evidence
2 See In the Matter of Clifford M DeKai/, etc and International Brotherhood of Tcamr-
sters, Chauffeurs, Stablemen and Helpers of America, Local Union No 649, 2 N L R. B.
231.
812 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
produced by the Company is in any event insufficient to indicate that
a majority of the employees of the Company no longer desire the
Union to represent them.
We find that the Union has been designated and selected by a
majority of the employees in the appropriate unit as their representa-
tive for the purposes of collective bargaining. It is, therefore, the
exclusive representative of all the employees in such unit for the
purposes of collective bargaining, and we will so certify.
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 Century Mills, Inc., Riverside, New Jersey,
within the meaning of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of
the National Labor Relations Act.
2. The employees of the Company engaged in production, exclusive-
of clerical help (including receiving clerks), supervisory and main-
tenance help, and executives, constitute a unit appropriate for the,
purposes of collective bargaining, within the meaning of Section
9 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act.
3. The South Jersey Joint Board of the International Ladies
Garment Workers Union is the exclusive representative of all the.
employees in such unit for the purposes of collective bargaining,
within the meaning of Section 9 (a) of the'National Labor Relations
Act.
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
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, and pursuant to Article III, Section 8, of National Labor
Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 1, as amended,
IT Is HEREBY CERTIFIED that the South Jersey Joint Board of the
International Ladies Garment Workers Union has been designated
and selected by a majority of the employees of Century Mills, Inc.,
Riverside, New Jersey, engaged in production, exclusive of clerical
help (including receiving clerks), supervisory and maintenance help,
and executives, as their representative for the purposes of collective
bargaining and that, pursuant to the provisions of Section 9 (a) of
the Act, the South Jersey Joint Board of the International Ladies
Garment Workers Union is the exclusive representative of all such
employees for the purposes of collective bargaining in respect to
rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of
employment.