Granite Textile Mills, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 5, 1948

76 N.L.R.B. 613 (N.L.R.B. 1948)

In the Matter of GRANITE TEXTILE MILLS, INC., EMPLOYER and TEXTILE
WORKERS UNION Or AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER
Case No. e-RC-15.Decided March 5, 1948
Rathbone, Perry, Kelley, d Drye, by Messrs. T. R. Iserman and
J. H. Smrith, of New York City, for the Employer.
Mr. Benjamin TVyle, of New York City, for the Petitioner.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at New York
City on November 10, 1947, before John A. Penello, hearing officer.
The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prej-
udicial error and are hereby affirmed. The Employer's motion to
dismiss the petition is denied for reasons hereinafter stated in Section
V. Inasmuch as the record, in our opinion, adequately presents the
issues and positions of the parties, the Employer's request for oral
argument is also denied.
Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations
Board 1 makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
Granite Textile Mills, Inc., a New Jersey corporation, is engaged
in the manufacture of linens at its principal office and plant located at
Midland Park, New Jersey. During the year 1946, the Employer
purchased raw materials valued at more than $100,000, of which 90
per cent was shipped to its plant from points outside the State of New
Jersey. During the same period, the Employer sold finished products
exceeding $250,000 in value, of which more than 90 percent represented
shipments to points outside the State.
We find that the Employer is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
I 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. 93.
613
614 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
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 Peti-
tioner has been certified by the Board in an appropriate unit.
We find that a question affecting commerce exists concerning the rep-
resentation of employees of the Employer, within the meaning of Sec-
tion 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The Petitioner seeks a unit of all production and maintenance em-
ployees, including the engineer, watchmen, the gardener, and the in-
ventory clerk, but excluding office clerical employees and supervisors.
The Employer contends that the appropriate unit should be confined
to production employees only, and should exclude the engineer, watch-
men, the inventory clerk, office clerical employees, and supervisors.
The Employer takes no position with respect to the gardener.
Maintenance employees: The employer has four maintenance men,
each of whom performs all types of maintenance and repair duties,
such as machinery repair, welding, pipe fitting, electrical work, car-
pentry, masonry, and millwright work. They are not segregated into
skills or crafts. The maintenance employees have working conditions
similar to those of the production employees. Both groups work the
same number of hours, are paid by the hour, have the same vacation
benefits, and are uiider the supervision of the plant superintendent.
In view of the foregoing facts, and as no cogent reason appears for
the separation of the maintenance employees, we shall follow our usual
policy of including production and maintenance employees in one bar-
gaining unit.,
Watchmen: There are three watchmen whose duties are to maintain
a proper water level in steam boilers; to see that no unauthorized per-
son enters the plant; and to protect the property against fire hazards
and other damage. As contended by the Employer, we are of the
opinion that the watchmen are guards within the meaning of Section
9, (b) (3) of the Act, ai1d we must, therefore, exclude them from the
unit.,
S See Matter of.AoieacanTw ine and Fabric Corporation, 70 N. L R B' 353:
3 See Matter of C V. Hill & Company, Inc, 76 N L R B. 158
GRANITE TEXTILE MILLS, INC. 615
Engineer: The Employer has one employee, Richard Steinecke, who
is classified as an engineer. The Employer contends that he should
be excluded from the proposed unit because he performs the duties of
a watchman, and that he is also a supervisor. The record shows that
Steinecke's main job is to tend to the plant's boilers and steam engine;
that during infrequent intervals which interrupt production and for 3
hours on Saturday mornings, he acts as a watchman ; and that he super-
vises the watchmen in the operation of the boilers and may report them
to the plant superintendent for any neglect of such duty. We find that
'Steinecke is a supervisor and therefore not an employee within the
meaning of the Act. Accordingly, we shall exclude him from the
unit.
Gardener: There is one gardener who mows the lawn, rakes leaves,
.and attends flower beds on the plant property. He does not perform
any production work, but during inclement weather he acts as a jani-
tor within the plant. He is paid on an hourly basis and receives the
.same vacation privileges as the production and maintenance employees.
We shall include him in the unit, as requested by the Petitioner.
Inventory clerk: The Employer has one clerk in the shipping de-
partment, Mrs. Adriana Peters, whose duties are to keep inventory
records of the products that are in stock, and to prepare shipping
slips and bills of lading. The other two employees in the shipping
-department perform manual work and are under the supervision of
the department's foreman, who is also in charge of the finishing de-
partment. Mrs. Peters, who is supervised by the Employer's president,
-does not assist them, nor do they assist her, in their respective duties.
She is paid by the week, whereas the other employees in that depart-
ment are on an hourly basis. We are of the opinion that Mrs. Peters
is more in the nature of an office clerical employee, as distinguished
from factory clericals, whom we have customarily included in pro-
,duction and maintenance units.4 Accordingly, in view of the dissimi-
larity of the duties and interests of Mrs. Peters and these of the other
employees in the department, we shall exclude her from the unit of
'production and maintenance employees, hereinafter found appro-
priates
We find that all production and maintenance employees of the
Employer, including the gardener, but excluding watchmen, office
clerical employees,e the engineer, and all other supervisors, constitute
it unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within
the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
k See Matter of Northwest Engineering Company, 73 N. L R. B 40.
"Matter of Piper Aircraft Corporation, 73 N L. R. B. 914; Matter of John Deere
Dubuque Tractor Company , 72 N. L . R. B. 656, 662.
1 Mrs Peters is excluded as an office clerical employee.
616 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
After the hearing, the Employer moved to dismiss the petition in this
case, or, in the alternative, that the Board stay all proceedings until
the Petitioner "ceases and desists from striking and picketing" at the
Employer's plant.
The record reveals that on October 20, 1947, after the Petitioner, on
September 24, 1947, had filed its petition for certification of repre-
sentatives, the employees went on strike because the Employer refused
to grant recognition to the Petitioner as the bargaining representative
of its employees. The strike ended on December 10, 1947, and on the
following day all employees returned to work.
The Employer, in confirming the termination of the strike, con-
tends that the Board should not excuse the Petitioner's alleged mis-
conduct and that the petition should still be dismissed, or if not
dismissed, that "the Union having resorted to economic force instead
of following the peaceful procedure the Labor Act provides, the Board
ought to refuse to entertain its petition for a suitable period, say a
year." In effect, the Employer is requesting the. Board to penalize
the Petitioner for engaging in activities which the Employer assumes
to be a violation of the Act.
We certainly do not welcome a strike for recognition while a question
concerning representation is pending before the Board. But we can-
not assume, on this record, that such activities violated the Act; or
that the Union, by calling the strike after fihin its petition, adopted a
course of conduct which precludes any further action in the present
proceeding.7 We find nothing in the Act that provides for any such
penalty as is requested by the Employer. Inasmuch as the issue
concerning the direction of an election during the progress of a strike
is now moot, we hereby deny the Employer's motion to dismiss.
The Employer further contends that inasmuch as the record in-
dicates that the Petitioner will establish a local union, the Board should
require such local to be a party to this proceeding, and should require
it to comply with Section 9 (f), (g), and (h) of the Act. The Peti-
tioner is in compliance with the above section and the Employer
does not argue to the contrary. We find no merit in the Employer's
contention. Whether or not a local union is established, and whether
or not its officers will comply with the Act is conjectural ; the Em-
ployer's contention is, at the least, premature.
7 See Matter of National Silver Company, 71 N. L. R. B. 594.
GRANITE TEXTILE MILLS, INC.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
617
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the
purpose of collective bargaining with Granite Textile Mills, Inc.,
Midland Park, New Jersey, an election by secret ballot shall be con-
ducted 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 Second 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 ap-
propriate in Section IV, above, who were employed during the pay-
roll period immediately preceding the date of this Direction, includ-
ing employees who did not work during said pay-roll 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 elec-
tion, 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.