Charles H. Bacon Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 20, 1944

54 N.L.R.B. 703 (N.L.R.B. 1944)

In the Matter of CHARLES H. BACON COMPANY and AMERICAN FEDER-
ATION OF HOSIERY WORKERS, BRANCH #89
Case No. 10-R-1060.-Decided January 20, 1944
Frantz, McConnell cC Seymour, by Mr. Thomas G. McConnell, of
Knoxville, Tenn., and Mr. J. C. Greer, of Lenoir City, Tenn., for the
Company.
Mr. H. G. B. King and Miss Virginia Lee Roberts, both of Chat-
tanooga, Tenn., and Mr. John W. Seltzer, of Knoxville, Tenn., for
the Union.
Mr. A. Sumner Lawrence, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon petition duly filed by American Federation of Hosiery
Workers, Branch #89, herein called the Union, alleging that a ques-
tion affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation of
employees of Charles H. Bacon Company, Lenoir City, Tennessee,
herein called the Company, the National Labor Relations Board pro-
vided for an appropriate hearing upon due-notice before Dan M. Byrd;
Jr., Trial Examiner. Said hearing was held at Knoxville, Tennessee,
on December 9, 1943. The Company and the Union appeared, partici-
pated, and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and
cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the
issues. The Trial Examiner's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. All parties were
afforded an opportunity to file briefs with the Board.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Charles H.'Bacon Company, a Delaware corporation, has its prin-
cipal place of business at Loudon, Tennessee, where it is engaged in
54 N. L. R. B., No. 104
703
704 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the manufacture of hosiery. In addition to its hosiery mills at
Loudon, the Company also operates a hosiery and spinning mill, re-
spectively, at Lenoir City, Tennessee. During the year 1942, the
Company used at its Tennessee plants cotton yarn valued at $392,225,
I ayon valued at $815,133, and dyes and chemicals valued at $69,688.
Of these materials approximately 50 percent of the cotton yarn, all
of the rayon, and 50 percent of the dyes and chemicals, were obtained
from sources outside the State of Tennessee. The Company's annual
sales of finished products amount to approximately $5,000,000, of
which 90 percent is sold and shipped to points in States other than
the State of Tennessee.
H. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
American Federation of Hosiery Workers, Branch #89, is a labor
organization affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations,
admitting to membership employees of the Company.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
On November 8, 1943, the Union requested that the Company recog-
nize it as exclusive bargaining representative of the Company's em-
ployees in its hosiery and spinning mills at Lenoir City, Tennessee.
The Company declined to recognize the Union until certified by the
Board.
A 'statement of a Field Examiner for the Board, introduced in
evidence at the hearing, indicates that the Union represents a sub-
stantial number of employees in the unit hereinafter found appro-
priate.i
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning
the representation of employees of the Company, within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor
Relations Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The Union urges that the appropriate unit should consist of all
production and maintenance -employees of the Company's spinning
and hosiery mills at Lenoir City, Tennessee, including watchmen,
but excluding clerical employees wherever located, foremen, overseers,
second hands, and the nurse. The Company, on the other hand,
while agreeing to the exclusions requested by the Union, contends
1 The Field Examiner reported that the Union had submitted 384 designations dated
between March and November 1943 with 19 undated ; that of the 384 designations, 319
bore , the apparently genuine original signatures of persons whose names are on the Com-
pany's pay roll for November 8, 1943, containing 735 names within the claimed, appropriate
unit.
CHARLES H . BACON COMPANY 705.
that the unit should be company-wide and include the employees of
the hosiery mills at Loudon, Tennessee.
In a previous decision involving the same parties as in the present
instance,2 the Board found upon evidence, the record of which was
incorporated in the present proceeding, that the employees of the
spinning mill at Lenoir City had substantial interests in common
with the employees of the hosiery mill adjacent thereto.-' The only
question to be determined in the present proceeding is whether the
spinning and hosiery mill employees at Lenoir City may constitute
a separate appropriate unit apart from the employees of the remain-
ing mills of the Company located in a different community 6 miles
distant therefrom.
While the record reveals that the Company's operations are to a
large extent integrated and functionally coherent,4 the employees of
the two mills for whom separate representation is sought do, never-
theless, occupy a semi-autonomous position with respect to the re-
mainder of the Company's operations, as indicated by the fact that
the Company has a separate warehouse and a separate maintenance
department for its mills at Lenoir City, and by the fact that the
employees in the latter community are paid on a date different from
that used for pay-roll purposes at the other mills of the Company.
Furthermore, although there is some interchange of employees be-
tween Loudon and Lenoir City,S it appears that such interchange
among the Company's employees, the majority of when live in the
vicinity of their respective places of employment,6 is for the most
part infrequent.
Notwithstanding these facts, the Company contends that the extent
of organization on the part of the Union precludes the finding of
an appropriate unit limited to the Company's employees at Lenoir
2 53 N. L. R B. 296.
3 The Board dismissed the petition in the previous proceeding upon the ground that the
spinning mill unit sought by the Union was inappropriate for purposes of collective
bargaining.
4 Although the Company 's operations are interdependent to a considerable degree and
have a common overall supervision , those at Loudon involve, at least in part , a different type,
of work in the manufacture of full fashion hosiery , the only mill for which is located at
Loudon.
5 The Company occasionally transfers employees from one mill to the other upon the
request of the employee or when the foreman is of the opinion that a transfer is necessary
for the sake of increased production . Generally transfers are made from the spinning mill
in Lenoir City to the hosiery mill in Lenior City, and from the hosiery mill in Lenoir City
to the hosiery mills in Loudon . There have been no transfers from the spinning mill in
Lenoir City to the hosiery mills in Loudon. It was estimated that approximately 15
transfers during a year 's time would be made between the hosiery mill in Lenoir City and
that in Loudon, and that this type of transfer exceeded in number the transfers from the
spinning mill in Lenoir City to the hosiery mill adjacent thereto.
6 The Company ' s vice president estimated that of the approximately 800 employees who.
work in London, only about 50 live in Lenoir City and commute to and from work by bus.
and automobile He also estimated that of the nearly equal number of employees at
Lenoir City, only 20 to 25 live at Loudon and travel to and from work at Lenoir City.
56T900-44-vol. 54--46
706 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
City. The evidence discloses that while the Union made some un-
successful attempts to organize the Loudon employees about the year
1936, and in April 1943, following a strike among the fixers, received
into membership the fixers at the Loudon mills; the Union has no
other members among the Loudon employees and has for the present
abandoned all further attempts to organize such employees.
Under the circumstances, particularly in view of the lack of a
bargaining history on a broader basis,8 the substantially autonomous
character of the Lenoir City operations, the absence of any appre-
ciable interchange of employees between Loudon and Lenoir City,
the local interests of Lenoir City employees,9 and the limited extent
of self-organization among the employees of the Company, we are
of the opinion that the unit here sought is appropriate for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining at the present time.10 Our finding
that a unit confined to two of the Company's plants will not, however,
preclude a finding at some later date4hat a larger, more inclusive unit
is then appropriate.
We find that all production it and maintenance employees in the
Company's Lenoir City spinning and hosiery mills, including watch-
men,12 but excluding clerical employees wherever located, foremen,
overseers, second hands, the nurse, and all supervisory employees with
authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect
changes in the status of employees or effectively recommend such
action, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
• We shall direct that the question concerning representation which
has arisen be resolved by an election by secret ballot among the em-
ployees in the appropriate unit who were employed during the pay-
roll period immediately preceding the date of the Direction of Election
herein, subject to the limitations and additions set forth in the
Direction.
4 The fixers at the Loudon mills number between 17 and 19 employees.
9 Aside from the fixers for whom the Company and the Union have recently sought wage
increases from the National War Labor Board, there is no history of collective bargaining
upon a company-wide basis
° The development of social relations between the employees of the two communities has
been impeded by the inconvenience of bus schedules , the rationing of gasoline for private
automobiles , and the necessity of paying toll or ferry charges in order to travel by highway
between Loudon and Lenoir City.
10 See Matter of Standard Overall Company (Jobbers Pants Co.), 53 N. L. R. B. 960,
and cases cited therein . See also Matter of Abraham Brothers Packing Co., 47 N. L. R. B.
1338.
11 The term production employees is intended to include the warehouse employees who
service the production departments of-both spinning and hosiery mills in Lenoir City.
12 The watchmen perform the duties of ordinary watchmen and are not militarized.
CHARLES H. BACON COMPANY
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
707
By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National
Labor Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, and pursuant to Article III, Section 9, of National
Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 3, it is hereby
DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation to ascertain representa-
tives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Charles H. Bacon
Company, Lenoir City, Tennessee, an election by secret ballot shall be
conducted as early as possible but not later than thirty (30) 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, Sections 10 and 11, of said Rules and Regulations, among
the employees in the unit found appropriate in Section IV, above,
who were employed during the pay-roll period immediately preced-
ing the date of this Direction, including employees who did not work
during said pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation or
temporarily laid off, and including employees in the armed forces of
the United States who present themselves in person at the polls, but
excluding those employees who have since quit or been discharged for
cause and who have not been rehired or reinstated prior to the date
of the election, to determine whether or not they desire to be repre-
sented by American Federation of Hosiery Workers, Branch #89,
for purposes of collective bargaining.
MR. GERARD D. REILLY took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Direction of Election.