Douglas Fabrics Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 7, 1948

76 N.L.R.B. 1213 (N.L.R.B. 1948)

In the Matter of HOWARD F. W . TAYLOR, TRADING AS DOUGLAS FABRICS
Co., EMPLOYER 1 and TEXTILE WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, CIO,
PETITIONER
Case No. 4-RC-42.-Decided April 7, .1914
Mr. Irving A. Lilien f eld , of Pleasantville , N. J., for the Employer.
Mr. Samuel Frost, of Newark , N. J., for the Petitioner.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon an amended petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held
at Atlantic City, New Jersey, on January 29, 1948, before John H.
Wood, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hear-
ing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed 2
Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations
Board 3 makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
Howard F. W. Taylor, trading as Douglass Fabrics Co., has his plant
located at Pleasantville, New Jersey, where he is engaged in the manu-
facture of upholstery fabrics. During a recent 12-month period, the
Employer purchased raw materials valued in excess of $10,000, of
which 100 percent was shipped to the plant from points outside the
State of New Jersey. During the same period, the Employer shipped
finished products valued in excess of $12,000, of which approximately
85 percent was shipped to points outside the State of New Jersey.
1 The Employer's name appears as amended at the hearing.
2 The Employer' s motion to dismiss the petition on the ground that it was improperly
executed is denied. As the petition clearly indicates on its face that it was executed by a
person acting as a representative of the Petitioner, the Employer' s contention is without
merit.
8 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-man panel consisting of the undersigned
Board Members [ Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Reynolds].
76 N. L. R. B., No. 171.
1213
1214 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Employer admits and we find that it is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
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 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.
We find that a question affecting commerce exists concerning the
representation of employees of the Employer , within the meaning of
Section 9 ( c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and ( 7) of the Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The parties agree that production and maintenance employees, ex-
cluding supervisors, constitute an appropriate bargaining unit. The
Employer would include, and the Petitioner would exclude, one cleri-
cal employee and a loom fixer.
The duties of the clerical employee, Mrs. Grace Williams, are to type
letters, file papers and records, and prepare invoices and bills of lading
for the Employer's father, who is a plant supervisor. She works in
a section partitioned from the rest of the plant, except for occasional
trips to the production floor to check on pay-roll or production data.
She is paid on a daily basis, whereas the production and maintenance
employees are paid by the hour or on a piece-work basis. We are of
the opinion that Mrs. Williams is more in the nature of an office clerical
employee, as distinguished f rom factory clericals, whom we have cus-
tomarily included in production and maintenance units. Accordingly,
in view of the dissimilarity of the duties and interests of Mrs. Willams
and those of the other employees in the plant, we shall exclude her from
the unit of production and maintenance employees.
The Petitioner contends that the loom fixer is a supervisor and
should, therefore, be excluded from the unit. The loom fixer's duty is
to keep the looms in repair. He does not operate a loom and does not
do any actual fabric production work. He is paid on an hourly basis,
as are all the production and maintenance employees except the weav-
ers, who are paid on a piece-work basis. The loom fixer does not pos-
sess authority to hire, transfer, suspend, lay off, recall, promote, dis-
charge, assign, reward, or discipline other employees or responsibly
DOUGLASS FABRICS CO. 1215
to direct them, or effectively recommend such action. All the em-
ployees in this small plant are directly and entirely supervised by the
Employer or his father. Under the circumstances, we find that the
loom fixer is not a superviser, and therefore we shall include him in the
unit.
We find that all production and maintenance employees at the Pleas-
antville, New Jersey, plant of the Employer, including the loom fixer,
but excluding the office clerical employee 4 and supervisors, 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 Howard F. W. Taylor, trading
as Douglass Fabrics Co., Pleasantville, New Jersey, an election by se-
cret 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 Fourth Region, and
subject to Sections 203.61 and 203.62, of National Labor Relations
Board Rules and Regulations-Series 5, among the employees in the
unit found appropriate in Section IV, above, who were employed dur-
ing the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of this Direc-
tion, including employees who did not work during said pay-roll period
because they were ill or on vacation or temporarily laid off, but ex-
cluding 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 repre-
sented by Textile Workers Union of America, CIO, for the purposes
of collective bargaining.
4 Mrs. Grace Williams . Also excluded , pursuant to the agreement of the pai ties , is Mrs.
Howard F. W. Taylor, the wife of the Employer, who performs similar clerical work.