H & M Manufacturing Co. Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 1, 1948

76 N.L.R.B. 459 (N.L.R.B. 1948)

In the Matter of H & H MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC., EMPLOYER
and AMALGAMATED CLOTHING WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO,
PETITIONER
Case No. lo-R-2730.-Decided March 1, 1948
Mr. Mortimer H. Freeman, of Atlanta, Ga., for the Employer.
Mr. William V. George, of Emory University, Ga., and Mr. Peter
Zubal, of Atlanta, Ga., for the Petitioner.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition drily filed, hearing in this case was held at Statham,
Georgia, on December 10 and 29, 1947, before Charles M. Paschal, Jr.,
hearing officer. At the hearing, the Employer moved to dismiss the
petition on the grounds that the Petitioner had filed its petition before
the effective date of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, but
has made no showing of current designations since the effective date of
that Act. For the reasons stated in Section III, infra, the motion is
hereby denied. The hearing off'icer's rulings made at the hearing are
free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
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.*
Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations
Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
H & H Manufacturing Company, Inc., a Georgia corporation, is en-
gaged in the manufacture of men's slacks at its place of business at
Stathain, Georgia. All the raw material used by the Employer, con-
sisting principally of wool and flannel cloth, is shipped to it from
* Chairman Herzog and Members Murdock and Gray.
76 N L. R. B, No 68.
459
460 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
points outside the State of Georgia. The value of this raw material
does not appear in the record. The Employer also purchases "find-
ings," consisting of articles such as zippers, buttons, and pocket mate-
rial, valued at approximately $25,000 annually, of which approxi-
mately 50 percent is shipped to it from points outside the State of
Georgia. The Employer's finished products are valued at approxi-
mately $100,000 annually, of which more than 60 percent is shipped to
points outside the State of Georgia.
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
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 trepresentative of employees of the Employer until the
Petitioner has been certified by the Board in an appropriate unit.
As indicated, the Employer at the hearing moved to dismiss the
petition, contending that the Petitioner, having filed its petition before
the effective date of the amendments to the Act, should have renewed
its designations thereafter. In support of its motion, the Employer
sought to introduce in evidence a petition purportedly signed by the
employees, revoking their union membership and designations. We
can perceive nothing in the provisions of the amended Act that requires
renewal of a petitioner's designations. For this reason, and because,
as we have frequently held, the requirement of a showing of repre-
sentation is only an administrative expedient, adopted to enable the
Board to determine if further proceedings are warranted, and not
subject to objection at the hearing, we deny the Employer's motion
and 'affirm the hearing officer's ruling refusing to admit the petition
in evidence.,
We-find that a question affecting commerce exists concerning the
representation of employees of the Employer, within the meaning of
Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The Petitioner seeks a unit consisting of all employees of the Em-
ployer, excluding office and plant clerical employees, plant protection
s See Matter of Mascot Stove Company , 75 N. L R B 427 ; Matter of Southern Advance
Bag & Paper Co, Inc , 75 N. L. R. B 614.
H & H MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC. 461
employees, executives, and supervisors. The Employer agrees gen-
erally with the composition of the unit , except that it would include the
plant clerical employees ; it also asserts that it does not employ any
plant protection employees. Other disagreements between the parties
concern various individuals whom the Petitioner would include and
the Employer exclude, in addition to the plant clericals.
The alleged office clerical: This employee 2 before the 5 or 6 weeks
preceding the hearing herein, spent all her time as a machine operator.
Since that time, however, she has been engaged in work in the office
for from 1 to 4 hours a day, when necessary. This work consists of
stamping pants tickets with the sizes of the pants . She performs no
other clerical duties, however, and spends the majority of her time
operating a machine on the production line. We shall include her in
the unit.
The plant clerical: This employee 3 work as a shipping clerk, re-
ceiving and checking materials and packing shipments. He does not
make out invoices , bills of lading or orders , but receives these items
from the office. In accordance with our practice, we shall include him,
as a plant clerical employee, in the unit.
The alleged supervisors: These employees' primarily fill in on ma-
chines for absent employees . In addition , one of them performs all
repair work for the Employer. There is no testimony to the effect that
either is a supervisor within the meaning of the amended Act, although
the Petitioner adduced evidence to show that they check the work of
other employees at times to determine if it is done properly and to
instruct the employees in correcting the defects. Under all the cir-
cumstances, we believe that they are not supervisors, and will include
them in the unit.
The watchman: The Petitioner contends that the watchman' should
be excluded from the unit as a plant protection employee. This em-
ployee patrols the property and premises of the Employer to protect it
against fire and theft, although he is neither armed nor deputized. As
the watchman performs plant protection duties, we shall exclude him
from the unit , in accordance with the terms of Section 9 (b) of the
amended Act.6
We find, accordingly , that all employees of the Employer , including
plant clerical employees , ( but excluding office clerical employees, the
watchman , executives , and supervisors as defined in the amended Act)
z Dorothy Roberts
Charles huff
4Molly Ferguson and 'Mrs Nfalcoln
s Perkins
6 Dfatte ofC V Hill ( Company, Ira, 76 N L R B 158
462 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the
purposes of collective bargaining with H & H Manufacturing Com-
pany, Inc., Statham, Georgia, 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 Tenth Region, and subject to Sections 203.61
and 203.62 of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regula-
tions-Series 5, among the employees in the unit found appropriate
in Section IV, above, who were employed during the pay-roll period
immediately preceding the date of this Direction, including 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 election, and also excluding em-
ployees on strike who are not entitled to reinstatement, to determine
whether or not they desire to be represented by Amalgamated Clothing
Workers of America, CIO, for the purposes of collective bargaining.