Danita Hosiery Manufacturing Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 16, 1946

71 N.L.R.B. 366 (N.L.R.B. 1946)

In the Matter of DANITA HOSIERY MANUFACTURING Co., INC., Ei r-
PLOYER and AMERICAN FEDERATION or HOSIERY WORKERS, CIO,
PETITIONER
Case No. 10-R-1878.-Decided October 16, 191.6
Mr. Joe N. Everett, of Philadelphia, Pa., and Messrs. Paul R.
Merki and George E. Barclay, of Crossville, Tenn., for the Employer.
Mr. Herbert G. B. King, of Chattanooga, Term., and Mr. Floyd C.
Buckner, of Knoxville, Tenn., for the Petitioner.
Mr. Samuel G. Hamilton, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at Cross-
ville, Tennessee, on July 25, 1946, before Albert D. Maynard, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations
Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. T1-1E BUSINESS OF THE EML'LOYER
Danita Hosiery Manufacturing Co., Inc., is a Delaware corpora-
tion licensed to transact business in the State of Tennessee. The Em-
ployer operates several mills. We are here concerned solely with its
mill at Crossville, Tennessee, at which it is engaged in the manufac-
ture, sale, and distribution of women's full-fashioned hosiery. For
this purpose it purchased during the year 1945 in excess of $25,000
worth of raw materials, consisting principally of nylon, cotton, and
silk, approximately 90 percent of which was shipped from points out-
side the State of Tennessee. During the same period the Employer
sold in excess of $100,000 worth of finished products, more than 90
percent of which was shipped to points outside the State.
The Employer admits and Ave find that it is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
71 N.L R B, No. 53.
366
DANITA HOSIERY MANUFACTURING CO., INC.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
367
The Petitioner is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress
of Industrial Organizations, claiming to represent employees of the
Employer.
III. TILE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Employer refuses to recognize the Petitioner as the exclusive
bargaining representative of employees of the Employer until the
Petitioner has been certified by the Board in an appropriate unit.
Despite repeated requests for recognition by the Petitioner, the
Employer's representative stated at the hearing that the Employer
had not recognized the Petitioner as the exclusive bargaining repre-
sentative of employees of the Employer.'
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning
the representation of employees of the Employer, within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. TIIE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The Petitioner seeks a unit of all production and maintenance em-
ployees at the Employer's Crossville mill, including fixers, but ex-
cluding office and clerical employees, watchmen, and supervisory em-
ployees. The Employer is in agreement with the Petitioner, except
that it would exclude fixers as supervisory employees.
The Employer contends that instead of employing foremen, who
would be higher paid elnplo) des, it uses fixers in the dual capacity of
foremen and fixers. The Petitioner argues in its brief that, although
the machines in the Employer's mill are full-fashioned machines,
they are Wieldman single unit machines,-which are sufficiently differ-
ent from long-section, multiple unit full-fashioned knitting machines
so as to preclude the identification of fixers on single unit knitting
,machines with those on multiple unit machines. It asserts that the
latter are "always considered as having supervisory authority." The
Petitioner further claimed at the hearing that it takes into member-
ship fixers in single unit full-fashioned mills, but not fixers in multiple
unit full-fashioned mills.
In the illock, Judson case,2 the Petitioner brought to our attention,
and we recognized, a well-established pattern of collective bargaimng
in the full-fashioned hosiery industry whereby fixers are excluded
i Letters were addressed by the Petitioner to the Treasurer of the Employer on Apu1 11
and April 19, 1946, and to the attorney for the Employer on May 9, 1946, requesting recog-
nition and a conference to discuss recognition and to negotiate an agreement. This con-
ference was never held. The Petition herein was filed on July 6, 1946.
2 Hatter of Mock, Judson, Voe/ringer Company of Nog t7, Carolina, Inc, 63 N. L R B 96
717734-47-vol 71-25
368 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
from units of production and maintenance employees. No exception
to this custom was mentioned by the Petitioner at the time of our
decision in that case. Presumptively, therefore, all fixers in the full-
fashioned hosiery industry are encompassed by this custom, and their
exclusion from production and maintenance units is warranted. In
this case, the Petitioner has failed to meet the burden of proving with
certainty that fixers of the type employed by the Employer are not
embraced by this custom. Despite its attempt to distinguish the
Employer's fixers from oLhets in the full-fashioned hosiery industry
on the ground that the Employer's fixers operate a different type of
machine, the Petitioner did not produce contracts or other cogent
evidence to show that fixers who work on single unit machines are
included in production and maintenance units in the industry. Ac-
cordingly, in consonance with our decision in the Moclc, Judson case,
we shall exclude the Employer's fixers from the production and main-
tenance unit hereinafter found appropriate.
We find that all production and maintenance employees at the
Employer's Crossville mill, excluding fixers, office and clerical employ-
ees, watchmen, the superintendent, assistant superintendent, foremen,
foreladies, and all other 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.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the
purposes of collective bargaining with Danita Hosiery Manufacturing
Co., Inc., Crossville, 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 Sec-
tions 203.55 and 203.56, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and
Regulations-Series 4, among the employees in the unit found appro-
priate in Section IV, above, who were employed during the pay-roll
period immediately preceding 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 have not been rehired or rein-
stated prior to the date of the election, to determine whether or not
they desire to be represented by American Federation of Hosiery
Workers, CIO, for the purposes of collective bargaining.