Delaware Knitting Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 14, 1947

75 N.L.R.B. 205 (N.L.R.B. 1947)

In the Matter of DELAWARE KNITTING COMPANY , INC., EMPLOYER and
AsrERICAIV FEDERATION OF HOSIERY WORKERS , CIO, PETITIONER
Case No. 5-R-2886.-Decided November 14 , 1947
Weil, Gotslzal cC dlanges, by Mr. Robert Abelow , of New York City,
for the Employer.
Mr. Fred G. Held , of Philadelphia , Pa., for the Petitioner.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at Balti-
more, Maryland, on April 23, 1947, before Earle K. Shawe, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
irom prej udtclal error and are hereby affirmed. At the hearing the
Employer moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that the unit
sought is inappropriate. The hearing officer referred the motion to
the Board for ruling thereon. For reasons appearing hereinafter,
the motion is hereby granted.
Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations
Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
Delaware Knitting Company, Inc., a Delaware corporation, is en-
gaged at its Elkton, Maryland, plant in the manufacture of women's
full-fashioned hosiery. All the operations incidental to such manu-
facture are performed at this plant except for the finishing operation.
During the 1946 calendar year the Employer purchased raw materials
valued in excess of $100,000, 50 percent of which represented purchases
made outside the State of Maryland. During the same period, the
Employer shipped its entire product, valued at $150,000, to an affiliated
corporation located outside the State for finishing.
The Employer admits for the purpose of this proceeding, and we
find, that is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act.
75 N. L R. B., No. 27
205
206 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Petitioner is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress
of Industrial Organizations, claiming to represent employees of the
Employer.
III. THE ALLEGED APPROPRIATE UNIT
The Petitioner seeks a unit composed of all seamers, loopers and
examiners of the Employer's knitting plant, excluding the seamer-
looper fixer. The Employer opposes the establishment of a separate
unit of these employees. contending that the appropriate unit should
consist of all its production and maintenance ,employees.
The Employer's operations are housed in a 2-story plant, and con-
sist of the knitting department, having 23 knitters and 12 knitters'
helpers, and another group of employees consisting of 11 seamers, 3
loopers, and 3 examiners, or a total of 17 employees.' The knitting
department, not sought by the Petitioner, occupies the entire first floor
and part of the second floor. The balance of the second floor is
devoted to the remaining employees and is physically segregated from
the second floor segment of the knitting department by a partition.
After the yarn has been knitted into flat stockings in the knitting
department, the stockings are moved to the seamers who complete the
seam, the loopers who close the toe, and the examiners who inspect
the work for defects.
All employees of the plant are under the general supervision of the
plant superintendent. The 17 employees in the unit sought by the
Petitioner work only during the day shift and under the supervision
of the seamer-looper fixer, whereas the 35 employees of the knitting
department work in two shifts, each of which is supervised by a knitter
fixer.
There has been no history of collective bargaining among any em-
ployees of the Employer. During 1945, the Petitioner made an
unsuccessful effort to organize the plant on an over-all basis. The Peti-
tioner made a second attempt, in 1946, to organize all the plant's em-
ployees, including the employees of the knitting department; how-
ever, it apparently was successful only among the seamers, loopers
and examiners.
I This group was referred to by the Petitioner as comprising the "auxiliary department."
In this connection two witnesses for the Employer denied the existence of such a depart-
ment at this plant, although one of them admitted that seamers . loopers and examiners in
other hosiery plants are known as the auxiliary department . Furthermore , the document
used by one witness for the Employer in giving job classifications , designated the seamers,
loopers, and examiners as employees of the "auxiliary department ." In view of our
finding herein , it is immaterial whether or not we consider the seamers , loopers, and
examiners as constituting the auxiliary department of this Employer's plant.
DELAWARE KNITTING COMPANY, INC. 207
The Petitioner apparently relies on the differences between the func-
tions of the two groups of employees, and also on the present extent
of employee organization, tc support its unit contention. While the
seamers, loopers, and examiners are, in many respects, distinguishable
from the knitters and their helpers, it is also true that sharp distinc-
tions also exist as between them. Thus, for example, the searners and
loopers use different types of machines, while the examiners are not
machine operators. The seamers and loopers require approximately
9 months of training to qualify, whereas the examiners require only
1 month. Furthermore. none of the three classifications sought by
the Petitioner falls within any recognized craft grouping. The plant
is small, and in the absence of stronger evidence of homogeneity within
the group sought, the arguments for breaking it up into still smaller
units are not impressive.
It is also urged that the extent of Petitioner's organization of the
employees must also be considered in reaching a determination as to
the appropriate unit in this case. It is true that this is one of many
factors to be weighed in determining the appropriateness of a unit.
But we conclude, in the light of the other facts in this record, that the
extent of employee organization would actually be the sole justification
for finding that the unit sought here is appropriate. It would not be
a factor, but the controlling one. In these circumstances extent of
organization cannot be the determinative element, for the Act, as
.amended, provides that "the extent to which the employees have
organized shall not be controlling." 2 We therefore find that the unit
:;ought by the Petitioner is inappropriate, and will grant the Em-
ployer's motion to dismiss the petition.
IV. THE ALLEGED QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
Because the bargaining unit sought to be established by the petition
is not appropriate, as found in Section III, above, we find that no
question affecting commerce has arisen concerning the representation
of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) of
the Act.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that the petition for investigation and certi-
fication of representatives of employees of Delaware Knitting Com-
pany, Inc., filed herein by American Federation of Hosiery Workers,
CIO, be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
MEMBERS MURDOCK and GRAY took no part in the consideration of
the above Decision and Order.
2 Section 9 ( c) (5) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended by Labor Manage-
ment Relations Act, 1947.