Flint Mfg. Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 25, 1943

49 N.L.R.B. 1084 (N.L.R.B. 1943)

In the Matter Of FLINT MFG. CO. ( PLANT No. 2 ) and UNITED TEXTILE
WORHERS OF AMERICA (A. F. OF L.)
Case No. R-5245.-Decided May 25, 1943
Mr. George B. Mason, of Gastonia , N. C., for the Company.
Mr. John W. Pollard, of Spartanburg , S. C., for the, Union.
Mr. Glenn L. Moller , of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a petition duly filed by United Textile Workers of America
(A. F. of L.), herein called the Union, alleging that a question affecting
commerce had arisen concerning the representation of employees of
Flint Mfg. Co. (Plant No. 2), Gastonia, North Carolina, herein called
the Company, the National Labor Relations Board provided for an
appropriate hearing upon due notice before Anthony E. Molina, Trial
Examiner. Said hearing was held at Gastonia, North Carolina, on
April 26,'1943. The Company and the Union appeared, participated,
and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-
examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues.
The Trial Examiner's rulings made at the hearing are free from preju-
dicial error and are hereby affirmed.
On May 5, 1943, the (Company filed a brief which the Board has
considered.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Flint Manuacturing Company, a North Carolina corporation, oper-
ates two plants at Gastonia, North Carolina, where it is engaged in
the manufacture, sale, and distribution of combed yarns, practically
all of which are used in the manufacture of material for;Army and
Navy uniforms.
The principal raw material used by the Company at the Gastonia
plants is cotton, approximately 90 percent of which is shipped to the
49 N. L. R. B., No. 157.
1084
FLI1^'(r. MFG. CO. (PI ANT NO. 2) 1085
said plants from points outside the State of North Carolina. The
Company's purchases of cotton for processing at the aforesaid plants
amount in value to approximately $1,000,000 annually. The Company -
ships about 75 percent of the finished products of the Gastonia plants
to points outside the State of North Carolina. These finished prod-
ucts amount in value annually to approximately $2,000,000.
The, Company admits that it is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
United Textile Workers of America, affiliated with the American
Federation of Labor, is a labor organization, admitting to member-
ship employees of the Company.
M. THE ALLEGED QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Union seeks a unit consisting of all production and mainte-
nance employees of the Company at Plant No. 2, excluding supervisory
and clerical employees and also excluding a group of maintenance em-
ployees who-work in and about both plants. The Company contends
that only a unit which includes both plants is appropriate. We agree
with the contention of the Company. -
Plants 1 and 2 are about 700 to 800 feet apart, separated only by
a railroad track. Both plants produce yarn, the only difference, being
that one plant produces a heavier or thicker yarn than the other.
However, yarn which is processed originally in one plant is frequently
taken to the other plant to be, partially processed on the machinery
of the latter, after which it is returned to the plant where its process-
ing originated. Frequently an overseer accompanies the material to
the other plant and supervises the, employees who work, upon it,
whether they be employees who have gone to the other plant with him
or whether they be employees who ordinarily work in the other plant.
This interchange of both supervisory and production employees is
frequent.
The Company maintains separate pay rolls for the two plants, but
carries on the pay roll of each plant'every employee who has worked
during any particular pay-roll period upon goods which originated
in that plant. Hence an employee who may have spent the entire
week in Plant No. 2 may appear on the pay roll of Plant No. 1 by
reason of •having• worked upon yarn which originated in Plant No. 1.
Thus, also, an employee who worked most of the week in Plant No. 1
and a few hours in Plant No. 2 would appear on the pay roll of Plant
No. 2 if he was working on material which originated in Plant No. 2.
There are about 204 employees listed on the pay roll 'of Plant No. 1
1086 DE'CTSIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BO'A'RD
and about 279 on the pay roll of Plant No. 2.' The evidence does not
disclose how many of the employees' names may appear on both pay
rolls as 'of any particular date. The Company operates the plants
under the supervision, of one superintendent; there is one purchasing
department and one sales department; and there is one paymaster for
both plants.
The Union states that it has organized only one plant and contends
that it is entitled to a unit confined to that plant on the basis of the
extent of its organization. We have frequently found appropriate-
a unit smaller than the unit which all parties agreed would ultimately
be the most appropriate, on the ground that the employees who are
already organized should not be denied the benefits of collective bar-
gaining until the remainder of the employees have organized.' In
those cases, however, the petitioners sought units consisting of clearly
defined and identifiable employee groups who could, on functional or
other bases, logically and reasonably be segregated from the other
employees for the purposes of collective bargaining. When the unit
sought has not been a clearly definable one, we have dismissed the
petition.2 The facts in this case, as set forth above, indicate, not
only that there is a high degree of functional integration between the,
two plants in question, but also that' identification of the employees
who would constitute the single-plant unit sought by the Union
would be extremely difficult. We find, therefore, that the unit sought
by the Union is inappropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining.
We accordingly find, that no question has arisen concerning the
representation of employees of the Company in an appropriate bar-
gaining unit. The petition for investigation and certification of rep-
resentatives will be dismissed.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and the entire
record in the case, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders
that the petition for investigation and certification of representatives
of employees of Flint Mfg. Co. (Plant No. 2), Gastonia, North Caro-
lina, filed by United Textile Workers of America, affiliated with the
American Federation of Labor, be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
Matter of Verson Allsteel Press Company and International Association of Machinists,
Shop Welders & Cutters of America, Local 1539, affiliated with A. F. of L., 40 N L R B
858; Matter of Max Pollack & Company, Inc. and Textile Workers Union of America,
(0. I. 0 ), 38 N L. R. B. 966.
2 Matter of Lane Bryant, Inc, and Department Stoi a Employees ' Union Local $91, United
Retail, Wholesale, and Department Store Employees ' of America, (CIO), 42 N. L. R. B.
218; Southern California Gas Company and Utility Workers Organizing Committee, C. I. 0.,
40 N. L. R. B. 256. 1