Fried, Ostermann Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 23, 1938

7 N.L.R.B. 1075 (N.L.R.B. 1938)

III the Matter of FRIED, OSTERMANN Co. and LOCAL 80, INTERNA-
TIONAL GLOVE WORKERS OF AMERICA, A. F. L.
Case No. R-583.-Decided June 23, 1938
Garment, Glove, and Mitten Manufacturing Industry-Investigation of
Representatives : petition for, dismissed , where no question concerning the
representation of employees in an appropriate unit has arisen.
Mr. Morris L. Forer, for the Board.
Miller, Mack c0 Fairchild, by Leon F. Foley and James D. Porter,
both of Milwaukee, Wis., for the Company.
Padway, Goldberg c0 Tarrell, by Mr. I. E. Goldberg and Mr. David
Previant, both of Milwaukee, Wis., and Mr. Lewis G. Hines, of
Washington, D. C., for the International.
Mr. Max E. Geline, of Milwaukee, Wis., for the Amalgamated.
Mr. Sylvester Garrett, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On January 14, 1938, Local 80, International Glove Workers of
America, herein called, the International, filed with the Regional
Director for the Twelfth Region (Milwaukee, Wisconsin) a petition
alleging that a question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the
representation of employees of Fried, Ostermann Co.,' Milwaukee,
Wisconsin, herein called the Company, and requesting an investiga-
tion and certification of representatives pursuant to Section 9 (c) of
the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act.
On January 18, 1938, the National Labor Relations Board, herein
called the Board, acting pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the Act and
Article III, Section 3, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and
Regulations-Series 1, as amended, ordered -an investigation and
authorized the Regional Director to conduct it and to provide for
an appropriate hearing upon due notice.
1 The petition and order directing an investigation and certification of representatives
incorrectly designated the Company as "Fried-Ostermann Company."
1075
1076 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On January 18, 1938, the Regional Director issued a notice of
hearing, copies of which were duly served upon the Company, upon
the International, and upon the Milwaukee Joint Board, Amalgam-
ated Clothing Workers of America, herein called the Amalgamated,
a labor organization claiming to represent employees directly affected
by the investigation. Pursuant to the notice, a hearing was held on
January 27, 28, 29, and 31, 1938, at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, before
Alvin J. Rockwell, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board.
The Board, the Company, the International, and the Amalgamated
were represented by counsel and participated in the hearing. ' Full
opportunity to be heard, to'examine and cross-examine witnesses, and
to introduce evidence bearing on the issues was afforded all parties.
During the course of the hearing the Trial Examiner made several
rulings on motions and on objections to the admission of evidence.
Thereafter the Company, the International, and the Amalgamated
filed briefs with the Board and participated in oral argument before
the Board, at Washington, D. C., on February 18, 1938. The Board
has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no
prejudicial errors were committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
The Company, a Wisconsin corporation, is engaged in the manu-
facture and sale of leather gloves, leather and mackinaw mittens,
leather coats and jackets, mackinaw coats and jackets, and leather
helmets. Its manufacturing plant is located at Milwaukee, Wiscon-
sin. Approximately 92 per cent of the raw materials used by the
Company are obtained from sources outside Wisconsin, while, nearly
98 per cent of the finished product is shipped outside the State for
sale. Sales by the Company's own sales force are made throughout
the United States, and in connection therewith the Company main-
tains merchandise warehouses in New York City and in Dallas, Texas.
In addition, a wholly owned subsidiary corporation is operated by
'the 'Company for the purpose-of selling its products exclusively to
department-store trade throughout the country. At its Milwaukee
plant the Company employs about 870 persons. The value of gross-
sales by the Company in 1937 was approximately $3,200,000.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Local 80, International Glove Workers of America, is a -labor
organization affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, ad-
DECISIONS A-IND ORDERS 107T
witting to its membership all employees in the Glove Department of
the Company, excluding clerical and supervisory employees.
Milwaukee Joint Board, Amalgamated Clothing Workers of Amer-
ica, is a labor organization affiliated with the Committee for In-
dustrial Organization, admitting to its membership all employees in
the manufacturing departments of the Company, excluding cafeteria,
clerical, maintenance, shipping, and supervisory employees.
III. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
At the Company's Milwaukee plant there are approximately 760,
production employees, excluding supervisory personnel. This num-
ber is comprised of about 480 employees in the Glove Department,
and approximately 280 in the Garment Department. In its petition,
the International claims that the bargaining unit should consist of
all Glove Department employees, excluding those with supervisory
duties. The International does not assert, it is important to note, that
the Glove Department employees constitute a distinct skilled craft.
It does claim, however, that the Glove Department is so distinctly
separated in the Company's business from the Garment Department
that the employees of the two should be deemed to constitute two,
separate bargaining units.
The Amalgamated contends that any bargaining unit should be
upon a plant-wide basis, including employees of both the Garment
and the Glove Departments. It asks that the petition of the
International be, therefore, dismissed.
The earlier labor relations of the Company illumine the issue thus
raised. Prior to 1928 there had been no apparent organizational
activity among the Company's employees by any labor organization.
During that year, however, the Amalgamated succeeded in obtaining
a number of members among, the Company's workers. In 1930 the
Amalgamated conducted a strike of 5 months' duration among the
employees of the Company. At this time an attempt was made to
induce workers in both the Glove and Garment Departments to join
the Amalgamated. This effort was appreciably successful in win-
ning over to the Amalgamated a number of the Garment Department
employees as well as of the cutters in the Glove Department. The
latter group consists of about 115 male employees who are the most
highly skilled of the glove workers. At the same time, however, the
glove sewers and the glove workers, composed largely of female em-
ployees, remained adamant to the solicitations of the Amalgamated
organizers.
Although the strike was unsuccessful, the Amalgamated and the
Company, on December 30, 1938, negotiated a strike settlement
1078 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
agreement applicable to employees throughout the entire plant. In
addition to providing machinery for handling questions growing
out of the return of strikers to work, the agreement went on to estab-
lish a procedure whereby employees from all of the various divisions
of the Company could negotiate with the Company through employee
committees on questions of wages, hours, and working conditions.
The agreement was of 1 year's duration.
In the late summer of 1933 the Amalgamated once more conducted
a protracted strike at the Milwaukee plant. The strikers were com-
posed predominantly of workers from the Garment Department,
and of the cutters from the Glove Department. Again the balance
of the glove workers remained at work during the strike, prin-
cipally because a large wage increase was granted them by the Com-
pany in order to influence them against participating in the strike.
After 7 weeks of strife, the Amalgamated and the Company entered
into a contract on September 22, 1933. By its terms this was to
remain operative until December 31, 1934, with an automatic renewal
from year to year thereafter unless either party gave notice of a
desire to terminate the contract more than 30 days prior to Decem-
ber 31 of any given ensuing year. The agreement recognized the
Amalgamated as sole bargaining agent for the approximately 115
cutters in the Glove Department, as well as for all employees in the
Garment Department excluding supervisory employees. The bal-
ance of the glove workers were, however, excluded from the bargain-
ing unit. Originally the Amalgamated had sought recognition as
bargaining agent for these employees as well, but had been unable
to win this concession from the Company. During the course of the
negotiations, however, the Amalgamated leaders expressed their de-
termination ultimately to extend the contract to cover all of the
glove workers. At the time, only a very few glove workers, other
than the cutters, were members of the Amalgamated.
During the next few years there seems to have been no serious
effort made to organize the remaining glove workers. The evidence
shows, however, that during 1936 individual glove workers were
approached to join the Amalgamated, although no sustained mem-
bership drive was launched. In January 1937, the Amalgamated
definitely requested the Company to extend the contract to include
all employees in both departments, exclusive of supervisory em-
ployees, and at the same time sought a wage increase for all such
employees. These requests thereupon became subjects of negotia-
tion between the parties during the next 5 months. During the
latter part of this period the Amalgamated commenced a campaign
to organize the remaining glove workers, with some measure of suc-
cess. A witness on behalf of the International testified that about
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 1079
May 1, 1937, she was present at an Amalgamated organizational
meeting attended by 50 or 60 glove sewers.
During the middle of May, the International made its first attempt
to organize the glove workers, by distributing leaflets announcing
an International meeting. About this time, the Company permitted
Amalgamated members to solicit the glove workers during working
hours. Finally, on June 30, 1937, the Company and the Amal-
gamated entered into a supplemental agreement extending the origi-
nal 1933 contract to include all production employees in both depart-
ments, excluding those with supervisory duties. Since the execu-
tion of this agreement, therefore, the Amalgamated has represented
the employees of both departments for the purposes of collective
bargaining.' Not until July 28, 1937, did the International ap-
proach the Company with a request to be recognized as collective
bargaining agent for the Glove Department employees. No question
is raised in this case as to whether on June 30, 1937, the Amalgam-
ated actually represented a majority of the production employees
in the two departments, excluding supervisory employees.
At the hearing the International contended that the supplemental
agreement was the result of a desire to prevent it from organizing
the glove workers, rather than a recognition by the parties that a
single plant-wide unit was appropriate. Both the Company and the
Amalgamated denied this assertion. The evidence is clear that well
before the date of the agreement the Amalgamated had manifested
its desire to act as bargaining agent for all the glove workers. It
had made attempts to organize them in conjunction with the strikes
of 1930 and 1933.3 The strike settlement agreement of 1930 related
to the entire plant. The 1933 contract included the most highly
skilled glove workers-the cutters-while remaining employees in
the Glove Department were excluded because of the Company's de-
sire to minimize the concessions won by the newly recognized Amal-
gamated. From January 1937 until June 1937, the Company and
the Amalgamated had bargained over a wage increase to be ap-
plicable to employees throughout both departments. On June 14,
1937, these negotiations culminated in the granting of a 10-per cent
2Degpite their inclusion within the bargaining unit , many glove workers remained aloof
from the Amalgamated Glowing tension engendered by this situation culminated in_ a
brief strike in November 1937, when a large group of glove cutters refused to prepare
materials for the glove sewers Shortly thereafter the Company and the Amalgamated
agreed that in the rehiring of employees following the Christmas period seasonal lay-off
preference should be given Amalgamated members. This agreement precipitated filing of
charges with the Board alleging that the Company was unlawfully influencing its em-
ployees to join the Amalgamated . Action on these charges has been withheld pending the
outcome of the present case
s At the time of each strike Amalgamated officials requested the cooperation of the In-
ternational in organizing the glove workers Each request was refused
100791-3°_-vol vii--69
1080 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
wage increase. In the face of such evidence that the Company, as
well as the Amalgamated, had come to regard a plant-wide bargain-
ing unit as desirable, we cannot view the supplemental agreement as
born primarily of a desire to eliminate the International as a pos-
sible bargaining agent for the glove workers.
Aside from this, however, the International further contends that
the Glove Department constitutes a business unit so distinctly sep-
arate from the Garment Department that the two should be regarded
as two separate bargaining units. - In support of this contention it
is stated that the work done in the Glove Department is unrelated
to the work done in the Garment Department, that the employees of
the two departments are not easily interchangeable, that the depart-
ments are physically segregated, and that the Company administers
the two departments separately.
Although both glove and garment making are spoken of loosely
as "needle trades," it is clear that the types of work performed in
the Company's two departments are somewhat different. Special
training is required for specific operations in both departments, and
the Company, with rare exceptions, does not transfer employees be-
tween departments. On the other hand, there is evidence that ap-
proximately 4 per cent of the work turned out by the Glove Depart-
ment is done in conjunction with the Garment Department.
Both departments are housed in the Company's two large five-
story factory buildings, with an office building between them and a
warehouse building to the rear. In the older of the two large build-
ings the first three floors are devoted to glove-making operations,
while the fourth and fifth floors are given over to garment making.
In the newer of the large buildings the second and fourth floors are
occupied by divisions of the Garment Department. The first ' floor
houses both the glove shipping room, and the leather receiving
room,4 while the third floor contains both the garment stockroom
and the glove lining division of the Glove Department.5 On the
fifth floor are located the garment cutting division and the cafeteria
which serves the entire plant. Corresponding floors of the two build-
ings are joined together by connecting passageways, except in the
case of the second floor. It appears, further, that glove cutters--work
in the first floor of the plant warehouse building. In the two-story
office building are located offices which are the same for both de-
partments. Part of the first floor of that building is occupied by
the garment stockroom.
4 At the time leather is ordered it is not earmarked for use in either of the two depart-
ments Upon arrival in the receiving room, it is sorted into various types , best suited to
either glove or garment manufacture and then distributed accordingly.
5 Actual operations of the two departments on this - floor are separated by a fence.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 1081
For some administrative purposes the Company has maintained a
distinction between the two departments. At the hearing, however,
the Company took the position that the plant as a whole constituted
a single business unit, and was operated as such. The evidence amply
supports this position. A single general manager handles financial
matters, purchases, and sales for the entire plant. A single super-
intendent supervises all production, and passes through the entire
plant from four to six times daily in the course of his duties. Raw
materials for both departments are ordered together. All supplies
pass through a single warehouse. Both garments and gloves are
sold to the same customers, by the same salesmen, are shipped to-
gether, and billed on the same invoices.
After carefully weighing all of the evidence, we are unable to
reach the conclusion that the manner in which the Company operates
the Glove Department requires that the department be regarded as a
separate unit for the purposes of collective bargaining. We cannot
regard the admitted differences between the two departments as
cogent, in view of all the other circumstances brought out at the
hearing.
In other plants producing both gloves and garments, the Amal-
gamated has organized the employees on a plant-wide basis. At
the hearing it was testified that this was true as to six of the eight
or more companies engaged in a business comparable to that of the
Company. An Amalgamated local in one such plant was organ-
ized prior to Jaiiuary 1937. On the other hand, it appears that the
International has organized no glove workers in other plants com-
parable to that here involved.
Under all of the evidence presented in this case, therefore, we are
of the opinion that the employees of the Glove Department, exclud-
ing supervisory employees, should not be considered as a separate
bargaining unit. We find that the unit sought by the International
is not appropriate for the purpose of collective bargaining.
IV. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
Since as stated in Section III we conclude a unit corresponding to
that alleged in the petition filed in this case is not appropriate, we
find no question has been raised concerning the representation of
employees of the Company in an appropriate bargaining unit.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire
record in the case, the Board makes the following :
CONCLUSION OF LAW
No question concerning representation of employees of Fried, Os-
termann Co. in a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bar-
1082 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
gaining has arisen, within the meaning of Section 9 (c) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusion
of law the National Labor Relations Board hereby dismisses the
Petition for Investigation and Certification filed by Local 80, Inter-
national Glove Workers of America.