Cole-Gunn Hosiery Mills, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 27, 1954

108 N.L.R.B. 1144 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

1144 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
[The Board certified the Textile Workers Union of America,
CIO, as the designated collective-bargaining representative of
all production and maintenance employees of the New Eagle,
Pennsylvania, plant of the Employer, excluding the maintenance
mechanics, office and plant clerical employees, professional
employees, guards, the production floorlady, the packing, fold-
ing, shipping, and receiving supervisors, the supervisor of the
cutting room and patternmaker, and all other supervisors as
defined in the Act.]
COLE-GUNN HOSIERY MILLS, INC. and AMERICAN FEDERA-
TION OF HOSIERY WORKERS, AFL, Petitioner. Case No.
11-RC-596. May 27, 1954
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF
REPRESENTATIVES
Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election,' issued on
March 1, 1954, in the above proceeding, an election by secret
ballot was conducted on March 17, 1954, under the direction and
supervision of the Regional Director for the. Eleventh Region.
At the conclusion of the election, the parties were furnished
with a tally of ballots which shows that, of approximately 70
eligible voters, 73 cast ballots, of which 34 were for and 33
were against the Petitioner, and 6 were challenged.
As the challenged ballots were sufficient in number to
affect the results of the election, the Regional Director, pur-
suant to the Board's Rules and Regulations, conducted an inves-
tigation and, on March 25, 1954, issued and served upon the
parties a report on challenged ballots. On April 7, 1954, the
Employer filed exceptions to the Regional Director's report.
Upon the basis of the entire record in this case, the Board
makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
In his report, the Regional Director found that Charlie E.
Guthrie, Tommie Johnson, Roy Page, and Owen Paschal,
challenged as fixers, were fixers. He further found that W. B.
English and W. M. Hooper, challenged as watchmen, were
watchmen. As the Board, in ' its Decision and Direction of
Election, specifically excluded both fixers and watchmen from
the appropriate unit, he therefore recommended that the chal-
lenges to their ballots be sustained and that the Petitioner be
certified as the exclusive bargaining representative of the
employees in the unit found appropriate.
1Cole-Gunn Hosiery Mills, Inc., 11-RC-596, March 1, 1954. not reported in printed volumes
of Board Decisions and Orders.
108 NLRB No. 155.
NEW HYDEN COAL COMPANY 1 145
The Employer takes exception to the Regional Director's
recommendations and argues that the fixers and watchmen
should not have been excluded from the bargaining unit and the
Board erred in so excluding them. We do not agree. On the
basis of the entire record the Board determined that the
fixers , at the Employer ' s plant , were supervisors within the
meaning of the Act , and accordingly , excluded them from the
unit . In like manner , the Board found that the watchmen were
guards within the meaning of the Act, and they too, were ex-
cluded . As the Employer ' s exceptions contain nothing not pre-
viously considered by the Board , we shall adopt the Regional
Director ' s recommendations and sustain the challenges to the
ballots of Charlie E . Guthrie, Tommie Johnson , Roy Page, Owen
Paschal , W. B. English , and W. M . Hooper.
As the Petitioner has secured a majority of the votes cast,
we shall certify it as the bargaining representative of the em-
ployees in the appropriate unit.
[The Board Certified American Federation of Hosiery
Workers , AFL, as the designated collective - bargaining repre-
sentative of the employees in the unit found appropriate in the
Decision and Direction of Election.]
CLAY M. BISHOP and ROBERT E. WHITE CO-PARTNERS,
Doing Business As NEW HYDEN COAL COMPANY and
GEORGE HUFF, ORVILLE HUFF, JOE BAKER, CARLOS
STOLLINGS, WILLIAM W. TAYLOR, ALBERT BROCK
AND ARTEMUS CAMPBELL, Individuals . Case No. 9-CA-
510. May 28, 1954
DECISION AND ORDER
On June 24, 1953 , Trial Examiner Alba B. Martin issued his
Intermediate Report in the above - entitled proceeding, finding
that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain
unfair labor practices , and recommending that it cease and
desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set
forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto.
Thereafter , the Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate
Report and a supporting brief.
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial
Examiner at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error
was committed . The rulings are hereby affirmed . The Board
has considered the Intermediate Report, the Respondent's
exceptions and brief , and the entire record in the case and
hereby adopts the findings , ' conclusions , and recommendations
'The Trial Examiner at one point in his Intermediate Report inadvertently stated that
certain interrogations occurred on February 19 or 20, 1951; the correct date is February
19 or 20, 1952.
108 NLRB No. 163.