Henrietta Mills

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 9, 1940

25 N.L.R.B. 254 (N.L.R.B. 1940)

In the Matter Of HENRIETTA MILLS ( HENRIETTA PLANT ) and UNITED
TEXTILE WORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL #2081
Case No. R-1898.-Decided July 9, 1940
Jurisdiction : textile manufacturing industry.
Investigation and Certification of Representatives : existence of question: -re-
fusal to accord recognition to union ; election necessary.
Unit Appropriate for Collective Bargaining : production and maintenance em-
ployees excluding supervisory and clerical employees; no controversy as to.
Mr. Oscar J. Mooneyham, of Forest City, N. C., for the Company:
Mr. John W. Pollard, and Mr. Gordon L. Chastain, of Spartan-
burg, S. C., and Mr. Herbert Thatcher, of Washington, D. C., for the
Union. -
Mr. Malcolm A. Hoffmann, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On March 26, 1940, United Textile Workers of America, Local
#2081, filed with the Regional Director for the Fifth Region (Bal-
timore, Maryland) a petition alleging that a question affecting com-
merce had arisen concerning the representation of employees at the
Henrietta, North Carolina, plant of Henrietta Mills,' herein called
the Company, and requesting an investigation and certification of
representatives pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act.
On May 6, 1940, 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 Board Rules and Regu-
lations-Series 2, as amended, ordered an investigation and author-
ized the Regional Director to conduct it and to provide for an
appropriate hearing upon due notice.
On May 16, 1940, the Regional Director issued a notice of hearing,
copies of which were duly served upon the Company and the Union.
Pursuant thereto a hearing was held on June 17, 1940, at Rutherford-
ton, North Carolina, before Charles Y. Latimer, the Trial Examiner
IL Incorrectly designated as Henrietta Cotton Mills (Martel Mills) in the petition.
25 N. L. R. B., No. 29.
254
HENRIETTA MILLS 255
duly designated by the Board. The Company was represented by
counsel and the Union by its representatives, and all participated
in the hearing. Full'opportunity to be heard, to examine, and cross-
examine witnesses and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues
was afforded all parties. 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 reviewed the rulings of the
Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudicial errors were committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing for the purpose of oral argument
was held before the Board on June 27, 1940, in Washington, D. C.
The Company and the Union were represented by counsel and par-
ticipated.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Henrietta Mills, incorporated in 1887, is engaged in the manufac-
turing of print cloth and textiles at Henrietta, North Carolina. The
Company also operates similar plants at Caroleen, North Carolina, and
Cherokee Falls, South Carolina, where it employs approximately 1,000
employees. The Company obtains raw materials from six States other
than North Carolina. Its products are sold by agents in the following
principal cities: San Francisco, Boston, New York, St. Louis, and
Philadelphia. More than 50 per cent of the Company's raw mate-
rials and finished products cross State lines. At the time of the hear-
ing, the Company employed at its Henrietta plant approximately 390
employees, of whom 379 were production and maintenance employees.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
United Textile Workers of America, Local #2081, is a labor organ-
ization affiliated with the American Federation of Labor. It admits
to membership production and maintenance employees of the Com-
pany, excluding supervisory and clerical employees.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
During the month of March 1940, after a charter had been issued to
the Union and an organizational campaign instituted, which resulted in
the Union's obtaining authorization cards from a majority of the Com-
pany's employees,, Union Representative Gordon Chastain, together
with a committee of employees, conferred with the Company's superin-
tendent, one Timmerman, and an unidentified representative of the
Company in an effort to secure union recognition. Timmerman stated
that, whereas he would hear grievances from individual workers, he
256 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Would not grant recognition to the Union, and that it was the policy
of the Company to deal with individuals rather than the Union. Tim-
merman also refused to consent to an election to determine whether
or not the Union represented a majority of the Company's employees.
Shortly after this meeting took place, the petition herein was filed.
We find that a question has arisen concerning the representation of
the 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 -^Vith the operations of the Company
described in Section I above, has a close, intimate, and substantial rela-
tion 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
The Union contends that the production and maintenance employees
of the Company, excluding clerical and supervisory employees, consti-
tute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining.
The Company presented no testimony to indicate that the unit sought is
inappropriate.
We find that all production and maintenance employees of the Com-
pany, at its Henrietta plant, excluding supervisory and clerical em-
ployees, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining, and that said unit will insure to the employees of the Company
the full benefit of their right to self-organization and collective bar-
gaining and will otherwise effectuate the policies of the Act.
VI. THE DETERMINATION OF-REPRESENTATIVES
The Union asserts that it represents a majority of the employees in
the appropriate unit, and the Regional Director filed a statement at
the hearing to the effect that the Union had presented authorization
cards representing 235 of the Company's employees in the appropriate
unit.
We find that the question concerning representation which has arisen
can best be resolved by an election by secret ballot, and we shall direct
the holding of such an election. Neither the Union nor the Company
expressed a preference as to the date governing eligibility to vote in
such election. In accordance with our usual practice, we find that those
eligible to vote in the election shall be the employees in the appropriate
unit who are employed by the Company at its Henrietta, North Caro-
lina, plant during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date
of our Direction of Election herein, including employees who did not
HENRIETTA MILLS 257
work during such pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation,
and employees who were then or shall have since been temporarily
laid off, but excluding those who shall have since quit or been dis-
charged for cause.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire
=•ecord 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 Henrietta Mills, Henrietta, North Carolina,
within the meaning of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the
-National Labor Relations Act.
2. All production and maintenance employees of the Company at its
Henrietta, North Carolina, plant, excluding supervisory and clerical
employees, 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 Rela-
tions Act, and pursuant to Article III, Section 8, of National Labor
Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 2, as amended, it is
hereby
DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation ordered by the Board to
ascertain representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining with
Henrietta Mills (Henrietta plant), Henrietta, North Carolina, an elec-
tion by secret ballot shall be conducted as early as possible but not
later than thirty (30) days from the date of this Direction of Election,
under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the
Fifth Region, acting in the matter as agent for the National Labor
Relations Board, and subject to Article III, Section 9, of said Rules
and Regulations, among all production and maintenance employees
at the Henrietta, North Carolina, plant of the Company who Were
employed during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date
of this Direction of Election, including employees who did not work
during that period because they were ill or on vacation, and em-
ployees who were then and shall have since been temporarily laid off,
but excluding supervisory and clerical employees, and those who shall
have since quit or been discharged for cause, to determine whether
or not they desire to be represented by United Textile Workers of
America, Local #2081, for the purposes of collective bargaining.
Mr. WILLIAM M. LEISERSON took no part in the consideration of
the above Decision and Direction of Election.