Hat Corp. of America

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 17, 1939

11 N.L.R.B. 1206 (N.L.R.B. 1939)

In the Matter Of HAT CORPORATION OF AMERICA and UNITED HATTERS,
CAP AND MILLINERY WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION ,
Cases Nos. R-976 and R--977.-Decided March 17, 1939
Hat Industry-Investigation of Representatives : controversy concerning rep-
resentation of employees : rival organizations ; refusal of employer to recognize
either union as exclusive representative of its employees-Unit Appropriate for
Collective Bargaining : all employees of the "front shop" including all finishers,
trimmers , fiangers, inspectors , printers , labelers, boxers and packers, and
shippers , excluding executives , foremen, supervisory employees , and clerical
employees-Election Ordered: request that one union 's name be omitted from
ballot, because of coippany-domination , not warranted by evidence.
Mr. Richard J. Hickey, for the Board.
McLanahan, Merritt & Ingraham, by Mr. Henry Clifton, Jr., of
New York City, for the Company.
Mr. Louis Waldman, by David I. Ashe, of New York City, for the
United.
Mr. Raymond Enyeart, of East Norwalk, Conn., for the Alliance.
Mr. Francis V. Paone, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On March 7, 1938, United Hatters, Cap and Millinery Workers
International Union, herein called the United, filed a petition with
the Regional Director for the Second Region (New York City)
alleging that a question affecting commerce had arisen concerning
the representation of employees of Hat Corporation of America,
East Norwalk, Connecticut, herein called the Company, and request-
ing an investigation and certification of representatives pursuant to
Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449,
herein called the Act. The petition was amended on March 24, 1938.
On May 10, 1938, the United filed a second petition with the same
Regional Director. On May 28, 1938, the National Labor Relations
Board, herein called the Board, acting pursuant to Section 9 (c) of
the Act and Article III, Section 3, of National Labor Relations
11 N. L. R. B., No. 110.
1206
HAT CORPORATION OF AMERICA ET AL. 1207
Board Rules and Regulations-Series 1, as amended, ordered an
investigation with respect to each petition and authorized the
Regional Director to conduct it and to provide for an appropriate
hearing upon due notice, and, acting pursuant to Article III, Section
10 (c) (2), of said Rules and Regulations, further ordered that the
two cases be consolidated for the purposes of hearing.
On July 15, 1938, the Regional Director issued a notice of hearing,
copies of which were duly served upon the Company, upon the
United, and upon Front Shop Departmental Alliance, herein called
the Alliance, a labor organization claiming to represent employees
directly affected by the investigation. Pursuant to an amended
notice, a hearing was held on August 2 and 3, 1938, at South Norwalk,
Connecticut, before Herbert A. Lien, the Trial Examiner duly des-
ignated by the Board. At the commencement of the hearing the
Alliance filed a motion to intervene in the proceeding. This motion
was granted by the Trial Examiner. The Board, the Company, and
the United were represented by counsel, and the Alliance by its presi-
dent. All the parties participated in the hearing and were afforded
full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses,
and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues. During the course
of the hearing the Trial Examiner made several rulings on motions
and on objections to the admission of evidence. The Board has re-
viewed these rulings and finds that no prejudicial errors were com-
mitted. The rulings are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in the case the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Hat Corporation of America is a Delaware corporation engaged in
the manufacture, sale, and distribution of men's and ladies' hats. The
Company operates two plants located in East Norwalk, Connecticut,
designated as plants No. 1 and No. 2, and maintains a branch office
and factory in New York City. Only plant No. 1 is involved in this
proceeding.
In the manufacture of its finished products at East Norwalk, the
Company uses fur skins, shellac, sweat leather, silk and cotton rib-
bons, silk and cotton threads, and dyes, aggregating in value about
$250,000 a year, of which approximately 90 per cent are purchased
outside the State of Connecticut. Approximately 90 per cent of the
finished products of the East Norwalk plants are shipped to points
outside the State. The manufactured products of these plants are
valued at approximately $1,000,000 a year.
1208 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
United Hatters, Cap and Millinery Workers International Union,
is a labor organization affiliated with the American Federation of
Labor, admitting to membership employees of the Company engaged
in finishing and trimming operations. Local No. 32 admits to mem-
bership all finishers and Local No. 33 all trimmers employed by the
Company at East Norwalk. The petitions of the United herein,
purport to cover only the finishers in plant No. 1, over whom Local
No. 32 exercises jurisdiction.
Front Shop Departmental Alliance is a labor organization admit-
ting to membership all the employees of the "front shop" of plant
No. 1, except executives, foremen, assistant foremen, inspectors, and
clerical and supervisory employees.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
During the latter part of 1937 the United commenced a member-
ship drive among the employees in plant No. 1, and on January 17,
1938, requested recognition as the exclusive representative of the
finishers therein. The Company, in response to the request of the
United, refused to grant such recognition, referring to the Alliance
which also claimed to represent the employees.
We find that a question has arisen concerning representation of
employees of the Company.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION UPON
COMMERCE
We find that the question concerning representation which has
arisen, occurring in connection with the operations of the Company
described in Section I above, has a close, intimate, and substantial
relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and
tends to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce
and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
Plant No. 1 is divided into two parts : the "back shop" where rough
hat bodies are fabricated and the "front shop" where the hats are
finished, trimmed, packed, and shipped. The claims of the United
and the Alliance are confined to the "front shop." The finishing
departments for both men's hats and millinery ( women's hats) are
located on the third floor therein, the trimming departments for both
types of products on the second floor , the flanging department on
the first floor, and the printing, labelling, boxing, and shipping de-
HAT CORPORATION OF AMERICA ET AL. 1209
partment in the basement. Flanging operations are performed only
upon men's hats.
The United claims that there are two units appropriate for the
purposes of collective bargaining : one consisting of finishers, Hangers,
and inspectors on men's hats, and the other consisting of finishers
and inspectors on women's hats. The United would thus exclude all
trimmers as well as employees engaged in printing, labelling, box-
ing, and shipping. The Alliance contends that all the employees in
the "front shop" except inspectors constitute a single appropriate
unit. The Company takes a third position and urges the adoption
of two bargaining units : one consisting of the men's hat division, in-
cluding finishers, trimmers, and Hangers, and the other consisting of
the millinery division, including finishers and trimmers. The Com-
pany would exclude inspectors from both units.
In support of its claim the United urges that it has confined its
organizational activity through Local No. 32 to male employees, all
of whom are in the finishing departments. There was testimony
that the United attempted to organize both the male employees in
the finishing departments and the female employees in the trimming
departments but was successful in organizing only the male em-
ployees in the finishing departments. The United further contends
that the finishing and trimming departments are essentially separate
and distinct production units and that the organization of the em-
ployees has followed these departmental- lines, as witnessed by the
Alliance itself, which is nothing more than an "alliance" or confed-
eration of autonomous departmental labor organizations.
In urging the adoption of the wider industrial unit, the Alliance
on the other hand, points to the functional interdependence of the
various departments, the uniform hours of work and other condi-
tions of employment that obtain throughout the entire "front shop",
and the necessary coordination of all the departments for the suc-
cessful operation of the Company's business . The Alliance further
claims that it has organized the employees in all the "front shop"
departments with the exception of the finishers on millinery.
The claim of both the United and the Company that finishers work-
ing on men's hats and those working on millinery should be placed
in separate units is not supported by the record. There is no showing
that collective bargaining for a group of employees including all
finishers would prove ineffective. Indeed, Local No. 32 admits to
membership all hat finishers, regardless of the type of work they
engage in. Nor is the claim of the United for the exclusion of
trimmers supported by the evidence. It is clear that the United, in
segregating the workers in the industry into various locals at this
plant has recognized differences in sex rather than differences in
1210 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
occupation. As described above, Local No. 32 limits its membership
to male employees, whereas Local No. 33 limits its membership to
female employees. Generally the same working conditions obtain
for all employees with the exception of piece-rate wage differentials
that are applied as between male and female employees. It is appar-
ent, however, that such differentials would not raise substantial ob-
structions to successful collective bargaining for both the men and
the women as a single unit. In the "front shop" of plant No. 2,
limited to the production of men's hats, the United has heretofore
sought and obtained a bargaining unit consisting of both male fin-
ishers and female trimmers, as well as pouncers and flangers.1 Al-
though the United maintains that it there sought a single unit only
because the female trimmers had requested to be included, it offered
no proof that collective bargaining which proceeded on the basis of
such unit has proved ineffective.
The claims of the United are apparently based upon the extent to
which it has organized the Company's employees in plant No. 1.
Were the United the only labor organization seeking to represent the
employees herein, its claims would have some merit. It is undis-
puted, however, that the Alliance has succeeded in organizing the
employees beyond the claims of the United. Furthermore, the United
does not seriously maintain that in organizing the finishers it has
embraced all the employees in the "front shop" who are recognized as
members of the same craft.- We conclude that the bargaining units
proposed by the United and the Company are not appropriate for the
purposes of collective bargaining.2
It is apparent that generally the industrial unit urged by the Alli-
ance may properly constitute an appropriate collective bargaining
unit. All the parties agree that executives, foremen, assistant fore-
men, supervisory employees, and clerical employees should be ex-
cluded from the appropriate unit. As noted above, the United would
include inspectors whereas the Alliance would exclude them as super-
visory employees. Inspectors are responsible for checking finished
hats for flaws and defects. They exercise no supervisory powers and
the record shows that they are eligible for membership in both the
United and the Alliance.3 Under the circumstances we shall include
them in the appropriate unit.
1Matter of Hat Corporation of America and United Hatters, Cap and Millinery Workers
International Union, 3 N. L R. B. 931.
2 Cf. Matter of Postal Telegraph-Cable Company of Massachusetts and American Radio
Telegraphists' Association, 7 N. L R. B. 444. Matter of R. C. A. Communications, Inc.
and American Radio Telegraphists' Association, 2 N. L. R. B. 1109.
8 Early in the hearing the Alliance sought the inclusion of inspectors. Later, how-
ever, it reversed its position . The record shows that the Alliance numbers inspectors
among its members.
HAT CORPORATION OF AMERICA ET AL . 1211
We find that all the employees of the "front shop" of the Company
at plant No. 1 including all finishers, trimmers, Hangers, inspectors,
printers, labelers, boxers and packers, and shippers, but excluding
executives, foremen, assistant foremen, supervisory employees, and
clerical employees, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of
collective bargaining, and that such unit will insure to employees of
the Company, the full benefit of their right to self-organization and to
collective bargaining and otherwise effectuate the policies of the Act.
VI. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
There was introduced in evidence the pay roll of plant No. 1 as of
May 10, 1938, which listed the names of approximately 661 employees
in the appropriate unit. The United introduced 167 membership
cards of employees within the unit. The Alliance introduced 404
application cards which it alleged were signed by employees in the
unit. The United challenged the genuineness of the signatures on the
cards offered by the Alliance, and although counsel for the Company
offered to submit to the Board subsequent to the hearing a list of the
signatures of employees for the purposes of comparison, he has since
notified the Board that such a list is not available. Under the cir-
cumstances we find that an election by secret ballot is necessary in
order to resolve the question concerning representation.
The United contended at the hearing that if an' election is ordered,
the Alliance be excluded from participating therein on the ground
that it is a company-dominated labor organization. Although the
United was permitted to introduce testimony in support of its con-
tention, the evidence does not warrant our making such a finding.4
Since the parties have not suggested a pay-roll date for the purposes
of determining the eligibility, of employees to participate in the elec-
tion, we shall adopt for such purposes the pay roll next preceding the
date of this Decision and Direction of Election.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire
record in the case, the Board makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. A question affecting commerce has arisen concerning the repre-
sentation of employees of Hat Corporation of America, East Nor-
walk, Connecticut, within the meaning of Section 9 (c) and Section
2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act.
2. All employees of the "front shop" of the Company at plant No.
1 including all finishers, trimmers, Hangers, inspectors, printers,
4Matter of Bemis Biothers Bag Company and Textile Workers Organ4zung Committee,
10 N. L. R B. 235.
1212 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
labelers, boxers and packers, and shippers, but excluding executives,
foremen, assistant foremen, supervisory employees, and clerical em-
ployees, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining, within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the National
Labor Relations Act.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National Labor
Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations
Act, 49 Stat. 449, and pursuant to Article III, Section 8, of National
Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 1, as amended,
it is hereby
DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation authorized by the
Board to ascertain representatives for collective bargaining with
the Hat Corporation of America, East Norwalk, Connecticut, an
election, by secret ballot shall be conducted within fifteen (15)
days from the date of this Direction, under the direction and super-
vision of the Regional Director for the Second Region, acting in this
matter as agent for the National Labor Relations Board and sub-
ject to Article III, Section 9, of said Rules and Regulations, among
the employees of the Hat Corporation of America, who were em-
ployed in the "front shop" of the Company at plant No. 1, East
Norwalk, Connecticut, including all finishers, trimmers, Hangers, in-
spectors, printers, labelers, boxers and packers, and shippers, but
excluding executives? foremen, assistant foremen, supervisory em-
ployees, and clerical employees, whose names appear on the pay roll
of the Company next preceding the date of this Direction, except
those who will have quit or been discharged for cause between that
date and the date of the election, to determine whether they desire
to be represented by United Hatters, Cap and Millinery Workers In-
ternational Union, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor,
or by Front Shop Departmental Alliance, for the purposes of col-
lective bargaining, or by neither.