Grinnell Pajama Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 19, 1954

108 N.L.R.B. 289 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

GRINNELL PAJAMA CORP. 289
rulings. The decisional basis of the Board's July 29, 1952,
order is described in our decision in the Shell Chemical Corpo-
ration case issued this day, and need not here be repeated.
Thereafter, following the Respondent's unsuccessful attempts
to obtain the Court's review of the Board's interlocutory order
of July 29, 1952, the case was litigated on the merits before
Trial Examiner Ralph Winkler who, on July 13, 1953, issued
an Intermediate Report disposing of the complaint on the merits.
He found that, as was alleged in the complaint, the Respondent
violated Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the statute upon the same acts
which had formed the basis of the initial, abortive proceedings
detailed above.
Thereafter, the .Respondent filed exceptions and a brief in
support thereof dealing with the merits of the case, but also
including, in effect, a renewal of the motion. to dismiss which
was the subject of the Board's July 29, 1952, order.
We have now reexamined, on the basis of the record as a
whole, the question of whether the summary dismissal of the
complaint without regard to the merits is justified as a matter
of policy. Upon the entire record, and in light of the similarity
of the circumstances under which this and the Shell Chemical
Corporation proceeding were placed before us, we are con-
vinced that substantially the same considerations are here pres-
ent as those motivating our decision in the Shell Chemical
Corporation case to the effect that sound policy reasons exist
for not proceeding further in the kind of unusual situation we
here face. Therefore, we find, as we did in the Shell Chemical
Corporation case, that it will not effectuate the broad purposes
and policies of the Act to proceed further in this case, and we
shall accordingly dismiss the complaint in its entirety, with-
out passing upon its merits.
[The Board dismissed the complaint.]
Member Beeson took no part in the consideration of the
above Decision and Order.
GRINNELL PAJAMA CORP. and AMALGAMATED CLOTHING
WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 1-RC-
3519. April 19, 1954.
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before M. Alice
Fountain, 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 this case, the Board finds:
108 NLRB No. 60.
339676 0 - 55 - 20
290 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning
of the Act.'
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent cer-
tain employees of the Employer.:
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the rep-
resentation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of
Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.'
4. The appropriate unit:
The Petitioner seeks a unit of production and maintenance
employees with the statutory exclusions . The Employer, how-
ever, would also exclude the shipping and receiving clerks as
confidential employees , the examiners as managerial em-
ployees, and the shipper and two assistant foremen as super-
visory employees. In addition, the Employer contends in its
brief for the first time that cutters and spreaders are a skilled
and functionally coherent group and should be separately repre-
sented from other production and maintenance employees. The
Petitioner would include all of these employees in the unit.
1 The Employer, on a labor contract basis, is engaged in the business of cutting, sewing,
and trimming ladies', children's, and men's pajamas at its plant in Massachusetts. Material
is shipped to the Employer from without the State of Massachusetts by out-of-State sellers
of the finished product. After the material is cut and sewn, the finished product is shipped
to customers of the sellers, at the latter's instructions. For its services during the past
year, the Employer received from the sellers from $250,000 to $300.000. In view of the fore-
going, we find that the Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act, and
that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. Hollow Tree Lumber
Company, 91 NLRB 635. In agreeing to assert jurisdiction here, Chairman Farmer and
Member Beeson are not thereby to be deemed as concurring with the Board's present
jurisdictional standards.
2 The Employer refused to stipulate that the Petitioner is a labor organization. We are
satisfied that the Petitioner exists for the purpose of collective bargaining with the Employer
with respect to wages, hours, and other cotditions of employment and therefore is a labor
organization as defined in the Act. Moreover, contrary to the Employer's contention, we find
that the Petitioner is not disqualified from seeking to represent the Employer's production
and maintenance employees solely because it customarily represents employees engaged in
the manufacture of men's wear.
3The Employer moved to dismiss the petition on the grounds that: (a) No previous demand
for recognition as bargaining agent was made by the Petitioner; (b) the Petitioner's showing
of interest was not attached to the copy of the petition served on the Employer; (c) the
petition was not sworn to before a notary public; and (d) the Petitioner failed to answer
correctly question 11 of the petition that another labor organization was interested in this
proceeding. We find no merit in the Employer's contentions and therefore deny its motion.
(a) The filing of a petition is itself sufficient demand for recognition to raise a question con-
cerning representation. Advance Pattern Company, 80 NLRB 29. (b) A labor organization's
showing of interest is an administrative matter for the determination of the Board and is not
subject to direct or collateral attack by the parties. Stokely Foods, Inc., 78 NLRB 842; C. D
Jennings & Company, 68 NLRB 516. Accordingly, a copy of the Petitioner's showing of
interest need not be served upon the Employer. (c) Under Section 102.52 of the Board's Rules
and Regulations it is unnecessary that a representation petition be sworn to where, as here,
the petition contains a declaration by the person signing it that the contents thereof are true
and correct to the best of his knowledge and belief under the penalties of the Criminal Code.
(d) Although the record discloses that the Petitioner incorrectly answered question 11 of the
petition, the Employer is not prejudiced thereby. However, the InternationalLadies'Garment
Workers' Union, which may be interested in this proceeding, may, upon timely motion and
proper showing of interest, antedating the date of the hearing, intervene in this proceeding
and be accorded a place on the ballot in the election hereinafter directed.
GRINNELL PAJAMA CORP. 291
Cutters and spreaders: As it appears that cutters and
spreaders are part of the production force and are subject to
the same general terms and conditions of employment, we find t
no reason to exclude them.
Shipping and receiving clerks: The Employer would exclude
the shipping and receiving clerks as confidential employees
because in the performance of their duties they learn the names'
and addresses of the Employer's customers, and the prices
and styles of the Employer's products. We find no merit in this
contention. As the record reveals that these employees do not
assist or act in a confidential capacity to any person who
exercises managerial functions in the field of labor relations,
we find that the shipping and receiving clerks are not con-
fidential employees within the meaning of Board decisions.4
Accordingly, we will include them in the unit.
Examiners: These employees inspect the finished work of
the stitchers. Because their duties include the rejection of
defective work, the Employer would exclude them as managerial
employees having diverse interests from those of production
and maintenance employees. We do not agree. As examiners do
not exercise any supervisory authority and their work is
essentially that of inspectors, we will, in accord with Board
policy, include them in the unit.'
The assistant foremen and the shipper: The Employer would
exclude, and the Petitioner would include, the two assistant
foremen and the shipper. The assistant foremen are responsible
to the plant foreman for the operations conducted in the plant.
The evidence shows they have the authority effectively to
recommend the hire and discharge of employees in their depart-
ments. Accordingly, we will exclude the assistant foremen as
supervisory employees. For the same reason, we will also
exclude the shipper who is in charge of the shipping department
and who the record shows has direct authority to hire and dis-
charge shipping and receiving employees.
We find that all production and maintenance employees at the
Employer's New Bedford, Massachusetts, plant, including
cutters, spreaders, shipping and receiving clerks, and exam-
iners, but excluding office clerical employees, professional
employees, watchmen, guards, the shipper, assistant foremen
and all other supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a
unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act .6
4E. I DuPont De Nemours and Company, Inc. (Construction Division, Savannah River
Plant), 107 NLRB No. 135 at 15; Miller Electric Company, 103 NLRB 1492.
5 Palmer Manufacturing Company, 103 NLRB 336.
6The Employer questioned whether seasonal employees should be included in the unit and
held eligible to vote. The record discloses that, although the Employer did not employ
seasonal employees at the time of the hearing, it customarily hires approximately 25 em-
ployees each year in May for its busy season during May, June, and July. Under Board
practice, such employees, if they perform functionally related work, are included in the
292 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication]
Member Rodgers took no part in the consideration of the
above Decision and Direction of Election.
unit irrespective of the number of hours they work or the tenure of their employment. As
the record does not disclose the nature of their duties or the regularity of their employment,
we will permit seasonal employees to vote subject to challenge if they are employed during
the eligibility period prescribed in the Decision and Direction of Election herein. Cf. L:
Wiemann Company , 106 NLRB 1167.
MARVEL ROOFING PRODUCTS , INCORPORATED ; WESTERN
PROCUREMENT COMPANY , INCORPORATED; NEW
MEXICO FELT MILLS , INCORPORATED ' and CHAUF-
FEURS, TEAMSTERS AND HELPERS , LOCAL UNION 492,
AFL, Petitioner . Case No. 33-RC-469 . April 19, 1954
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Byron E. Guse,
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 this case , the Board finds:
1. The three companies listed above are New Mexico
corporations occupying the same premises in Albuquerque,
New Mexico . Western Procurement Company, Incorporated,
is engaged in buying and selling basic raw materials used in
the manufacture of asphalt composition roofing products by
New Mexico Felt Mills. During the year 1953, Western
Procurement Company purchased scrap paper , sawdust , asphalt
coating and saturants , and other products valued at $240,520
from outside the State of New Mexico , and products valued at
$42,500 from within the State . All of its sales, amounting to
$ 365,767 , were made within the State to New Mexico Felt
Mills.
New Mexico Felt Mills, Incorporated , manufactures asphalt
composition roofing products . All but 7 percent of its materials
is purchased from Western Procurement Company. During
the year 1953 , all of its manufactured products , valued at
approximately $ 612,133, were sold within the State to Marvel
Roofing Products.
Marvel Roofing Products , Incorporated , in turn, sells all
the roofing products manufactured by New Mexico Felt Mills
in New Mexico , Arizona, Colorado , Texas, Oklahoma, and
' The names of the companies appear as corrected at the hearing.
108 NLRB No. 58.