H. A. Satin & Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 9, 1952

97 N.L.R.B. 1001 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

H. A. SATIN & COMPANY, INC. 1001
The Board finds that all salesmen-drivers of the Employer's whole-
:ale beer distribution company excluding office and clerical employees
and all supervisors as defined in the amended Act, constitute a unit
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the mean-
ing of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
H. A. SATIN & COMPANY , INC. and CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANI-
ZATIONS, PETITIONER . Case No. 35-RC-546. January 9,1952
Decision and Direction of Election
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before Alan A.
Bruckner, hearing officer of the National Labor Relations Board.
The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prej-
udicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the National Labor Relations Act.
2. The labor organizations named below claim to represent certain
employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the represen-
tation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section
9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act'
4. The Petitioner seeks a unit composed of all production and
maintenance (including shipping department) employees at the Em-
ployer's Evansville, Indiana, dress factory. The Employer and the
Intervenor contend that the production workers alone constitute an
appropriate bargaining unit. In support of this position, the Em-
ployer and the Intervenor demonstrated at the hearing that they
were parties to collective bargaining agreements from 1947 or 1948
to the middle of 1951, covering the production employees only, and
that the Intervenor secured a majority in a consent union-author-
ization election conducted among such employees by the Board's
Regional Director in August 1948. Further, Morris J. Levin, coun-
sel for the Intervenor, testified that in the midwestern and south
a At the hearing , International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union , AFL, and Its Local 399
intervened jointly. These labor organizations , herein called the Intervenor, moved that
the petition be dismissed on the grounds that ( 1) an appeal from the Regional Direc-
tor's dismissal of the Intervenor 's charges against the Petitioner in Case No . 35-CB-63
was then pending ; and (2 ) the unit sought by the Petitioner is inappropriate . That mo-
tion , which was referred to the Board , is hereby denied. The Intervenor's appeal was
denied by the General Counsel on October 17 , 1951. Its unit contention is rejected for
reasons set out below.
97 NLRB No. 150.
1002 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
central States the International is a party to between 200 and 250
collective bargaining contracts covering about 20,000 employees in the
garment industry, that he has had occasion to read all the Inter-
national's contracts covering that area for the past 10 years, and that
to the best of his knowledge not one of these contracts covers a bar-
gaining unit which includes both production and maintenance em-
ployees.
On the other hand, we note that the International has recently
sought, and the Board has directed, elections in the garment industry
for a production and maintenance Unit .2 Further, in a recent case
where the facts were similar to those in the instant proceeding except
that there was no prior bargaining history, the Board found a
production and maintenance unit appropriate although the Interna-
tional sought a production unit only .3 . In so finding, it was pointed
out that the normal community of interest existed between production
and maintenance employees and that, unlike the cases cited. by the
Intervenor, no labor organization sought to represent the maintenance
employees separately. These arguments are equally applicable to
this case.
Absent the past bargaining history at the Employer's Evansville
plant, which apparently conforms to the prevailing custom through-
out at least a substantial segment of the garment industry, we would
here find that the appropriate bargaining unit embraced both the
production and maintenance employees at that plant. However, the
Board is reluctant to disturb existing contract units established by
collective bargaining, unless they are repugnant to Board policy or
do not assure to employees the fullest freedom in exercising the
rights guaranteed by the Act.4
In the circumstances of this case, therefore, we hold that the em-
ployees at the Employer's Evansville, Indiana, plant in the following
voting groups, excluding supervisors, may constitute either a single
appropriate unit or separate appropriate units : 5 (1) All production
employees; (2) all maintenance (including shipping department)
employees. We shall make no final unit determination at this time,
but shall first ascertain the desires of the employees themselves. If
a majority in both voting groups vote for the Petitioner, they will
be taken to have indicated a preference for one over-all production
and maintenance unit, and the Board, under the circumstances, finds
such a unit to be appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining.
2 Newport News Children's Dress Company, 89 NLRB 442; Perfection garment Com-
pany, 91 NLRB 1421; and Denton Sleeping Garment Mills, Inc., 91 NLRB No. 145. In
the Denton case, the plants involved were located in the area covered by Levin'P.testimony:
2 Florence Manufacturing Company, Inc., 92 NLRB 185.
Illinois Cities Water Company, 87 NLRB 109.
s Steel Ceilings, Inc., 90 NLRB No. 34.
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS , ETC. 1003
In the event that a majority is established in voting group (1) alone
by either the Petitioner or the Intervenor, the Board finds the existing
production unit to be separately appropriate. Finally, in the event
the Petitioner establishes a majority in voting group (2) alone, the
Board finds the maintenance employees constitute an appropriate
bargaining unit.
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication in this
volume.]
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS , CHAUFFEURS, WARE-
HOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA , LOCAL #236 , INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS , CHAUFFEURS , WAREHOUSEMEN AND
HELPERS OF AMERICA , AND GUS SEIBERT , BUSINESS AGENT OF LOCAL
#236 and WM. F. TRAYLOR . Case No. 9-CD-8. January 10,195k
Decision and Order Quashing Notice of Hearing
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This proceeding arises under Section 10 (k) of the Act, which pro-
vides that "Whenever it is charged that any person has engaged in an
unfair labor practice within the meaning of paragraph (4) (D) of
Section 8 (b), the Board is empowered and directed to hear and de-
termine the dispute out of which such unfair labor practice shall have
arisen...."
On June 15, 1951, Wm. F. Traylor 1 filed with the Regional Director
for the Ninth Region a charge against International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Local
#236, herein called Local 236, International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, herein
called the International, and Gus Seibert, Business Agent of Local
#236, herein called Seibert, alleging that they had engaged in and
were engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8 (b) (4) (D) of the Act.
Thereafter, pursuant to Section 10 (k) and Sections 101.30 and
101.31 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, the Regional Director
investigated the charge and provided for a hearing upon due notice
to all parties. The hearing was held before Seymour Goldstein, hear-
ing officer, on August 1 and 2, 1951. All parties appeared at the
hearing and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine
° Wm. F. Traylor is vice president of-Traylor Brothers , Inc, which , as-indicated below,
has any indirect interest , in the conduct with which this proceeding is concerned.
97 NLRB No. 148.