Gloversville Knitting Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 7, 1947

74 N.L.R.B. 453 (N.L.R.B. 1947)

In the Matter of GLOVERSVILLE KNITTING COMPANY, EMPLOYER and-
TEXTILE WORKERS UIS ION OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER
Case No. 3--R-1483.-Decided July 7, 1947
Mr. Lydon F. Haider, of Gloversville, N. Y., for the Employer.
Messrs. Fred Krokenberger and John Capodifero, of Amsterdam,
N. Y., for the Petitioner.
Mr. David C. Buichalter, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
Upon a petition duly filed, the National Labor Relations Board on
March 13, 1947, conducted a prehearing election among employees of
the Employer in the alleged appropriate unit to determine whether or
not they desired to be represented by the Petitioner for the purposes of
collective bargaining.
At the close of the election a Tally of Ballots was furnished the
parties. The Tally shows that, of approximately 118 eligible voters,
102 cast ballots, of which 78 were for the Petitioner, 18 were against
the Petitioner, and 6 were challenged.
Thereafter, a hearing was held at Gloversville, New York, on March
28, 1947, before Francis X. Helgesen, hearing officer. The hearing
officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error
and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations
Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OE TFIE EMPLOYER
Gloversville Knitting Company, a New York corporation operates
three plants in the State of New York, including a plant at Glovers-
ville, which is solely involved in this proceeding . The Employer en-
gages at this plant in the manufacture of knitting cloth. During the
74 N L. R. B ., No 82.
453
454 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
calendar year 1946, the Employer purchased for use in this plant raw
materials valued in excess of $100,000, of which in excess of 50 percent
represented shipments from outside the State of New York. During
the same period the Employer's finished products at this plant were
valued in excess of $250,000, of which in excess of 50 percent repre-
sented shipments to points outside the State.
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 1
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 has arisen concerning
the representation of employees of the Employer, within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The Petitioner seeks a unit of all production employees of the Em-
ployer at its Gloversville , New York, plant, including second hands
and, the floorlady, but excluding office and clerical employees, truck
drivers, machine shop employees , firemen, watchmen , janitors, assistant
foremen, assistant foreladies , foremen, foreladies , superintendents,
and all other supervisory employees with the authority to hire, pro-
mote, discharge , discipline , or otherwise effect changes in the status
of employees or effectively recommend such action . The sole dis-
agreement between the parties relates to the second hands and the
floorlady whom the Employer would exclude from the unit as super-
visory employees.
The disagreement as to the second hands was reflected at the election
in the six ballots which were challenged . The disagreement as to the
floorlady was indicated for the first time at the hearing.2
1 The Layeis-off and Glove workers Local Union number 292, Amalgamated Clothing
Workers of America, CIO, herein called the ACWA and the representative of the enrplot ees
involved herein under a contract which expired December 31, 1946, was advised of this
procedure but disclaimed any interest in the matter and (lid not participate in the prehear-
ing election or appear at the healing.
2 The Eniplover contended at the hearing that it had intended , but inadvertently failed,
to challenge the ballot of the flooilady.
GLOVERSVILLE KNITTING COMPANY 4555
Floorlady: This employee was employed as a floorlady approxi-
mately 6 months before the hearing. She is employed in the spinning
department on the day shift working on spinning frames and instruct-
ing other employees on this work. There are 15 employees on the
day shift, all of whom are under the supervision of the foreman on
that shift. The floorlady is responsible for the proper maintenance
of the frames, and assists in keeping departmental records. While
the Employer contends that she has the authority effectively to recom-
mend the hire, discharge, or change in status of employees, the record
discloses that she has not actually exercised such authority. In addi-
tion, the floorlady, like production employees, is paid on an hourly
basis and appears to be subject to the same conditions of employment.
Under all these circumstances we find that the floorlady is not a
supervisory employee within our usual definition of the term and we
shall include her in the unit hereinafter found appropriate.
Second hands: There are in all six employees classified by the Em-
ployer as second hands. One works in the picking department, one
in the dyehouse department, two in the carding department, and two
in the spinning department.
The picking department complement consists of 12 employees, 7 on
the day shift and 5 on the night shift. The 7 on the day shift consist
of a foreman, a second hand and 5 production employees, while the
5 on the night shift are a foreman and 4 production employees. The
second hand in this department is under the supervision of the fore-
man of the picking department and spends about 100 percent of his
time working in the warehouse where he oversees the warehouse oper-
ations of receiving, weighing, and storing incoming stocks and of
blending and weighing out of all ingredients to make up the various
blends.
There are six employees in the dyehouse department which operates
on a day shift only. These include a foreman, an assistant foreman,
a second hand and three production employees. The second hand
works on the kettles of the automatic dyeing processes, as do the other
production employees in this department, handles the controls on other
equipment, relays to the production employees instructions from the
assistant foreman, and is in charge of the "piece dyeing operations"
carried on in a separate building across the street from the main dye-
house operations. While the Employer contends that this second hand
supervises any production employees whom he may need to assist him
in the "piece dyeing operations," the record discloses that he rarely
requires the services of other employees on this work, as he performs
these operations alone.
456 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
In the carding department there are 18 employees, 10 on the day
shift and 8 on the night shift. The 10 on the day shift consist of a
foreman, an assistant foreman, a second hand and 7 production em-
ployees, while the 7 on the night shift are a foreman, a second hand,
and 5 production employees. The second hands in this department
supervise the starting of batches on the day and night shift, respec-
tively, and see that stock is feeding properly. They maintain equip-
ment, assist in keeping departmental records and spend approximately
20 percent of their time on actual production work.
The spinning department complement consists of 25 employees, 15
on the day shift and 10 on the night shift. The day shift includes a
foreman, a second hand, a floorlady and 19 production employees;
.while the 10 on the night shift are a foreman, a second hand, and 8
production employees. The second hands in this'department adjust
spinning mules and frames for proper operation, change lots on mules
and frames, test material for size and quality, and assist in keeping
departmental records.
The Employer contends that second hands are supervisory em-
ployees in that they act in place of an absent assistant foreman, and
in place of an absent foreman in those departments where there are no
assistant foremen; that they have the authority effectively to recom-
mend the hire, discharge, or change in status of production employees;
and that, although employed throughout the entire period covered
by the prior contracts, they were never considered as being covered
thereunder. However, the record does not indicate that second hands
have ever acted as foremen or assistant foremen, and, at the hearing,
the Employer could not recall a single instance in which second hands
had effectively recommended the hire, discharge, or change in status of
production employees.
With respect to the bargaining history affecting these employees,
the record discloses that as the result of a consent election held under
Board auspices on October 18, 1941, the ACWA was' certified as the
sole bargaining agent of all production and maintenance employees
of the Employer, excluding the millwright and staff, mechanic and
staff, clerical and office employees and supervisory employees. In
January 1942, and again in 1943 and 1946, the Employer and the
ACWA executed contracts covering the same unit.3 While these con-
tracts excluded supervisory employees they made no specific mention
of the category of second hands, although second hands were employed
during the effective period of these contracts. However, in this con-
nection the Employer concedes that two of the second hands who were
3 After the expiration of the 1946 contract on December 31, 1946, the ACWA made no
effort to renew its contract.
GLOVERS17ILLE KNITTING COMPANY 457
performing some of the functions similar to that of a fixer and stock-
man, respectively, were, in each case, paid the rate fixed in the contract
for these classifications. It also appears that like the production
employees, the second hands have been paid on an hourly basis, have
participated in group or departmental incentive programs, and have
received their vacations according to the schedule for production
employees.
The Board has in other cases in this and related industries found
second hands to be supervisory employees.4 However, on the record
before us, we are unable to view these employees as typical of that
classification. Indeed, the Employer admits that "the operation is
small in terns of the numbers of persons employed and it is therefore
impossible to so limit the functions and duties of individuals or groups
that they can be readily classified." In this connection, we have
already noted that 2 of the employees in dispute, viz, K. Johns and
Nelson Bowers, were being paid the rates for stockman and fixer, re-
spectively, under the contract.5 Moreover, to grant the Employer's
request with respect to these employees would result in the exclusion
from the 4 departments of 15 of the approximately 61 production
and maintenance employees as having supervisory powers.° Under
all these circumstance, including the absence of convincing evidence
as to the supervisory status of the second hands, as well as the varied
nature of the duties of these employees in actual production, the
similarity of their working conditions with others agreed to be in-
cluded in the unit, we are persuaded that these employees are not
supervisory within the Board's customary definition of the term and
that their inclusion in the unit is warranted.
Accordingly, we find that all production employees of the Employer
:it its Gloversville, New York, plant, including second hands and the
floorlady, but excluding office and clerical employees, truck drivers,
machine shop employees, firemen, watchmen, janitors, assistant fore-
men, assistant foreladies, foremen, foreladies, superintendents, and
all or any other supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote,
discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of em-
ployees, or effectively recommend such action, constitute a unit appro-
priate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning
of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
4 Matter of Whither Mills Company, 66 N L R B 611; Matter of Denison Cotton Atilt
Company, 63 N. L R B 929. and Matter of Piedmont Cotton Mills, 60 N L. R B 200
At the prehcaring election these two employees stated that they were classified as
stockman and fixer, respectively
° There are 9 admittedly supervisory employees in these 4 departments The addition of
the 6 second hands to this group would therefore mciease the number to 15
458 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
The results of the election held before the hearing show that the
Petitioner has secured a majority of the votes cast , and that the chal-
lenged ballots are insufficient to affect the results of the election.
Under these circumstances we shall not direct that any of the chal-
lenged ballots be opened and counted, but instead shall certify the
Petitioner as the collective bargaining representative of the employees
in the appropriate unit.
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that Textile Workers Union of America,
CIO, has been designated and selected by a majority of all production
employees of the Employer at its Gloversville, New York; plant,
including second hands and the floorlady but excluding office and
clerical employees, truck drivers, machine shop employees, firemen,
watchmen, janitors , assistant foremen and foreladies , foremen and
foreladies , superintendents , and all supervisory employees with
authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline or otherwise effect
changes in the status of employees , or effectively recommend such
action, as their representative for the purposes of collective bargain-
ing, and that , pursuant to Section 9 (a) of the Act , the said organiza-
tion is the exclusive representative of all such employees for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining with respect to rates of pay, wages,
hours of employment , and other conditions of employment.
CHAIRMAN HERZOG took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Certification of Representatives.