Dixie Bag & Crate Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 20, 1950

88 N.L.R.B. 248 (N.L.R.B. 1950)

In the Matter of W . B. BROWN, D/B /A DIXIE BAG & CRATE COMPANY,
EMPLOYER and RETAIL, WHOLESALE AND DEPARTMENT STORE UNION7
CIO, PETITIONER
Case No. 10-RC-746.-Decided January 20,1950
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before Gilbert Cohen,
hearing officer. The hearing officer's ruling made at the hearing are
free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
.this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members
Houston and Reynolds].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in the manufacture of open mesh and
cotton bags, and in the wholesaling of tomato crates, market baskets,
bags, and other products at its plant in Atlanta, Georgia. During the
past year the Employer purchased approximately $61,000 worth of
raw materials consisting principally of thread and twine, ink, print-
ing plates, paper boxes, new and used market baskets, and tomato
crates. Approximately $1,100 of this sum represents purchases from
outside the State, and approximately $12,000 worth of purchases were
made from companies engaged in interstate commerce. During the
same period the Employer's sales totaled approximately $88,000, of
which more than $25,000 consisted of the sale of bags which it had
manufactured, and approximately $63,000 represented the resale at
wholesale of crates, baskets, bags, and other materials which it had
purchased. Twenty-two thousand five hundred dollars worth of man-
ufactured bags were sold to a customer in Winter Haven, Florida.
Approximately $3,500 of the wholesale products were sold to two cus-
tomers, one located in Asheville, North Carolina, and the other having
places of business both in Atlanta, Georgia, and Chattanooga, Tennes-
88 NLRB No. 67.
248
DIXIE BAG & CRATE COMPANY 249
see. The Employer advertises in trade papers published in New York
and Cincinnati, Ohio.
We find contrary to the contentions of the Employer, that it is en-
gaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act.
2. The labor organization named below claims to represent em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9
(c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The following employees of the Employer constitute a unit ap-
propriate for- purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9 (b) of the Act. All employees employed at the Employer's
plant at 1031 Lee Street, S. W., Atlanta, Georgia, including the local
truck driver and the press operator,' but excluding long distance truck
drivers, the bookkeeper, outside salesmen, office clericals, guards, and
all supervisors as defined in the Act.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining with the Employer, an election by secret
ballot shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later than 30 days
from the date of this Direction, under the direction and supervision
of the Regional Director for the Region in which this case was heard,
and subject to Sections 203.61 and 203.62 of National Labor Relations
Board Rules and Regulations, among the employees in the unit found
appropriate in paragraph numbered 4, above, who were employed
during the payroll period immediately preceding the date of this
Direction of Election, including employees who did not work during
said payroll period because they were ill or on vacation or temporarily
laid off, but excluding those employees who have since quit or been
discharged for cause and have not been rehired or reinstated prior to
the date of the election, and also excluding employees on strike who
are not entitled to reinstatement, to determine whether or not they
desire to be represented, for purposes of collective bargaining, by
Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, CIO.
1 The Employer contends that an employee classified as a press operator should be
included in the unit. The Union maintains a neutral position as to this employee. The
press operator does not have the authority to hire or discharge but may recommend as
to his own helper. As it is clear from the record that his recommendations have little
effect and that the authority exercised by him is only that normally exercised by skilled
workmen over helpers, we find that he is not a supervisor within the meaning of the
Act. We shall include him in the unit. General Steel Tank Co., 81 NLRB 1345.
1