Darlington Manufacturing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 16, 1957

119 N.L.R.B. 1069 (N.L.R.B. 1957)

DARLINGTON MANuFACTURING COMPANY, 1069
issues respecting the results of the election . Accordingly , -we -adopt
the Regional Director's recommendations "that the objections be over-
ruled and that the Petitioner be certified . We shall therefore issue
a certification of representatives in favor of the Petitioner.
[The Board certified United Shoe Workers of America, AFL-CIO,
as the designated collective-bargaining representative of the em-
ployees of the Employer in the unit heretofore found appropriate.]
Darlington Manufacturing Company and Textile Workers Union
of America, AFL-CIO. Case No. 11-CA-1071. December 16,
1957
ORDER REMANDING PROCEEDING TO REGIONAL
DIRECTOR FOR FURTHER HEARING
On April 30,1957, Trial Examiner Lloyd Buchanan issued his Inter-
mediate ' Report in the above-entitled proceeding, and on the same
date the proceeding was transferred to the Board. Thereafter, the
General Counsel, the Respondent, and the Charging Union filed
exceptions to the Intermediate Report and supporting briefs. The
Respondent and the Charging Union also filed reply briefs and
the Respondent requested oral argument. On September 16, 1957, the
Board heard oral argument in which the General Counsel, the
Respondent, and the Charging Union participated.
The Trial Examiner found in his Intermediate Report that the
Respondent violated Section 8 (a) (1), (3), and (5) of the Act.
During the course of the hearing the Trial Examiner rejected the
Union's offer to prove, inter alia, that the Respondent "was but one,
in a chain of about 30 mills whose operations and' labor relations are
controlled by Deering, Milliken & Co., Inc...." The Board is of
the opinion, without regard to the original purpose of the Union's
offer of proof or any purported waiver-referred to in the dissent, that
it is desirable in giving thorough and final consideration to the issues
in this case, to have evidence with respect to the single employer
status of Respondent and related corporations; and that accordingly,
the Charging Union and General Counsel should be given the oppor-
tunity to present evidence in support of the Union's offer of proof or
otherwise relevant to the single employer status of Respondent.
Accordingly, the Board having duly considered the matter,
IT Is BY oanERED that the record in this proceeding be, and it
hereby-is, reopened, and that a further hearing be held before Trial
2 g RBNo.11.6.
1070 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Examiner Lloyd Buchanan for the purpose of receiving. additional
evidence relevant to the Charging Union's offer to prove that the
Respondent is "but one in a chain of about 30 mills whose operations
and labor relations are controlled by Deering, Milliken & Co., Inc.,"
and any other evidence relevant to the single employer status of
Respondent and related corporations.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this proceeding be, and it hereby is,
remanded to the Regional Director for the Eleventh Region for the
purpose of arranging such further hearing, and that the said
Regional Director be, and he hereby is, authorized to issue notice
thereof.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, upon the conclusion of the supple-
mental hearing, unless the parties waive their rights thereto, the
Trial Examiner shall prepare and serve upon the parties a Supple-
mental Intermediate Report containing findings of fact upon the evi-
dence received pursuant to the provisions of this Order, conclusions of
law, and recommendations, and that, following the service of such
Supplemental Intermediate Report upon the parties, the provisions
of Section 102.46 of the Board's Rules and Regulations shall be-
applicable.
CHAIRMAN LEEDOM and MEMBER BEAN, dissenting :
In its brief in support of its exceptions td the Intermediate Report
the Charging Union specifically asserted with respect to its offer of
proof, "This proof, if permitted, would clearly support the complaint
and prove the illegal motivation behind the closing of the Respondent
plant," and "If the Board should decide that the evidence does not
justify the conclusion that the Respondent terminated operations
because of the Union's election victory, it is respectfully requested that
the Board overrule the Trial Examiner's ruling revoking the sub-
poenas and reopen the hearing for the receipt of evidence proffered.
by the Union." The Union's offer of proof was thus made for the
limited purpose of establishing that the Respondent's plant shutdown
violated the Act, and the Union advanced its offer only if the Board
should find that the shutdown was lawful. Accordingly, the Board
has the obligation to rule, in the first instance, upon the Trial Exam-
iner's finding that the Respondent's plant-closing violated the Act
absent the evidence asserted in the offer of proof. Indeed, in the.
event a majority of the Board agrees with the Trial Examiner, the,
Union anticipatorily withdrew its offer and it would not even be
before the Board for consideration. Accordingly, we would not
remand this case at this time.