Hess, Goldsmith & Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 13, 1954

110 N.L.R.B. 1384 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

1384 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the Act of the employees in the aforesaid unit for the purposes of collective
bargaining.
5. By refusing to bargain collectively with the Congress of Industrial Organizations
Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the mean-
ing of Section 8 (a) (5) of the Act.
6. By discharging William Gascon, Byron Colburn, and Felix Chapman on Sep-
tember 20, 1952, and Hazel Hartwick on November 12, 1952, because of their
activity on behalf of the Union , Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
7. By interfering with, restraining , and coercing its employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, Respondent has engaged in and is en-
gaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
8. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
HESS, GOLDSMITH & COMPANY , INC. and TEXTILE WORKERS UNION OF
AMERICA, CIO,' PETITIONER
HESS, GOLDSMITH & COMPANY , INC. and UNITED TEXTILE WORKERS OF
AMERICA, AFL,2 PETITIONER . Cases Nos. 4-RC-229, 4-BC-2256,
and 4-RC-2261 . December 13, 1954
Decision and Order
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Ramey C. Donovan,
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 Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain
employees of the Employer.
No question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9
(c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act for the following
reasons:
The Employer, a New York corporation, is engaged in textile man-
ufacturing at 7 plants located in California, New Jersey, and Pennsyl-
vania.' Its Pennsylvania operations consist of 4 plants, 2 of which
comprise the Atwater Division 4 and are located at Blackman Street,
Wilkes-Barre, and at Plymouth. The remaining plants are located at
1 Herein called CIO.
x Herein called AFL.
8 The California and New Jersey plants are located at distances of 3,000 and 120 miles,
respectively , from the Pennsylvania plants. CIO contends that the California and New
Jersey plants should be included in the unit , if its other unit proposals are rejected by the
Board. In view of the distance involved , the lack of community of interest , and lack of
interchange of California and New Jersey employees with those in Pennsylvania, we find
no merit in this contention . See Oswego Falls Corporation , 104 NLRB 314.
4 Herein called Atwater.
110 NLRB No. 212.
HESS, GOLDSMITH & COMPANY, INC. 1385
Pennsylvania Avenue, Wilkes-Barre,5 and at Taylor.6 All 4 plants are
engaged in textile throwing and weaving.? The operations at At-
water, represented by CIO, are principally throwing while Penn and
Taylor, represented by AFL, are primarily engaged in weaving. All
Pennsylvania plants are within 15 miles of each other.
On December 2, 1953, CIO filed a petition (Case No. 4-RC-2229)
in which it sought to represent the production and maintenance em-
ployees at Taylor alone. On December 30, 1953, and January 15,
1954, AFL filed petitions (Cases Nos. 4-RC-2256 and 4-RC-2261) in
which it sought to combine the production and maintenance employees
at Atwater with the weaving mills at Penn and Taylor into a single
multiplant unit. The cases were consolidated and, at the hearing,
CIO further contended that separate units consisting of employees
at Atwater alone and Penn alone as well as Taylor alone are appro-
priate. Alternatively it maintained that a unit made up of employees
at Penn and Taylor together is appropriate.' The Employer and
AFL assert that only a single unit consisting of employees at all four
Pennsylvania plants is appropriate. AFL also argues that its con-
tract with the Employer is a bar to CIO's petition for a separate unit
at Taylor; that the unit contentions of CIO are not meritorious; and
that CIO has made no representative showing of interest among
employees at Penn.
Bargaining History
The Employer has been engaged in textile manufacturing in the
Wilkes-Barre area for over 20 years. In early 1940, the Employer
recognized AFL as representative of employees at Penn and has bar-
gained with AFL with respect to Penn employees since that time.
The most recent contract between the parties was executed on April
15, 1952, effective through April 15, 1954. In 1947, CIO was certified
as bargaining representative for employees at Atwater and has bar-
gained with the Employer since that time. The latest contract was
executed May 15, 1951, effective until May 15, 1954. It is not con-
tended that the Penn or Atwater contracts are a bar to the petitions
herein.
After the purchase of Taylor in November 1953, the majority status
of AFL was established and the Employer recognized it as representa-
6 Herein called Penn.
8 Herein called Taylor.
7 Throwing is the term used in the textile industry which refers to the process whereby
raw silk or synthetic product is converted into thread . Weaving is the process whereby
thread is converted into fabric.
8 we find no merit in these contentions of CIO. For reasons hereinafter stated we find
that a separate unit at Taylor is inappropriate Implicit in that finding is the determina-
tion that a separate unit at Penn is also inappropriate , we find it unnecessary to pass
upon the further contentions of CIO as there is no showing that AFL desires to partici-
pate in an election in any unit other than the multiplant unit it asserts is appropriate ;
CIO has made an insufficient showing of interest at Penn and Taylor together , and has not
stated a desire for recertification at Atwater.
1386 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tive of the employees at Taylor. On November 17, 1953, the Em-
ployer and AFL signed an agreement effective until November 17,
1955. This instrument, described by its signatories as "an agreement,"
recognizes AFL as collective-bargaining representative for employees
at Taylor, establishes minimum wage rates and seniority rights at
Taylor, contains an escalator wage clause, and establishes a definite
,contractual period. It also incorporates by reference into the agree-
ment provisions of the Penn contract between the Employer and AFL
pertaining, among other things, to union security, grievance pro-
cedure, and a no-strike provision. This agreement also adopts cer-
tain fringe benefits. The parties agreed to incorporate the agreement
into a formal agreement at a future date. The agreement was signed
by the vice president of mill operations for the Employer and by an
international representative of AFL for the Union. After the filing
of the CIO petition herein the Employer refused to execute a formal
agreement pending Board adjudication of the question concerning
representation at Taylor. AFL asserts that this contract is a bar to
CIO's petition for a separate unit for employees at Taylor. CIO
contends that it is merely an informal memorandum between the
parties that had not ripened into a contract prior to its demand for
recognition and the filing of its petition.'
Operations of the Employer
The Employer has its main business offices in New York City where
all policy determinations are made and overall management and con-
trol is vested. Payrolls are compiled and audited and all matters
which are common to all plants are handled at New York.
The two plants which comprise the Atwater Division are prin-
cipally engaged in throwing. The throwing operation requires dif-
ferent machines and employee skills from those required in the Em-
ployer's weaving operations. Therefore, employees at Atwater are
recruited and trained separately, have separate seniority lists, and
are not at any time interchanged with Penn or Taylor employees.
Atwater is supervised by a general manager, who is assisted by a
managerial staff which works exclusively at Atwater. Atwater main-
tains different production schedules from Penn and Taylor. The gen-
eral manager of Atwater directs labor relations for that division alone.
It therefore appears that Atwater operates as a separate entity.
Penn, located 3 miles from- Atwater and 15 miles from Taylor, is
engaged in weaving fiber glass yarn into fabric, and, although it is
primarily engaged in weaving, it also throws a small quantity of fiber
glass which it then weaves.
B Because of the finding, infra, that a separate unit at Taylor is inappropriate, it is un-
necessary to determine whether or not the agreement between AFL and the Employer is a
bar to the CIO petition
HESS, GOLDSMITH & COMPANY, INC. 1387
Penn has its own selling organization, production program, and
training and recruiting program. It is supervised by a vice president
in charge of mill operations. This individual, assisted by a staff, is
in charge of the Employer's weaving operations. He directs labor
relations for Penn and Taylor. He has no supervision or control over
the throwing operations at Atwater. There is no interchange of
managerial or production personnel between Penn and Atwater.
As stated above, the Employer purchased the Taylor plant in No-
vember 1953 for use as a weaving mill. The Employer has recruited
employees locally and has transferred some employees from Penn on
a temporary basis to train Taylor employees. Supervisory and train-
ing personnel from Penn were used by the Employer to commence
production at Taylor and to train Taylor employees. The vice presi-
dent in charge of mill operations at Penn is the highest management
representative at Taylor and lesser executives at Penn also act for
Taylor. Production planning and scheduling for Taylor is conducted
at Penn. Taylor has no administrative offices or shipping depart-
ment. Therefore, all of Taylor's records are maintained at Penn and
finished products of Taylor are shipped from Penn. In addition,
some preliminary production work done at Penn is transferred to
Taylor where the production process is completed. The Employer
considers the Taylor plant a subsidiary or adjunct to Penn. It is
therefore clear, and we find, that Penn and Taylor are operated as a
single weaving unit with common management, similarity of em-
ployee skills, and common facilities and products, and that a unit lim-
ited to Taylor, as sought by CIO, is inappropriate.
In our view the mere acquition of a new plant does not, of itself,
warrant the holding of a separate election among its employees for
the purpose of establishing a bargaining representative.10 In the in-
stant matter, the integration of Penn and Taylor, together with the
similarity of working conditions and centralized managerial control,
demonstrate that a unit limited to employees at Taylor would not be
appropriate.
It further appears that the two plants comprising Atwater are op-
erated as a single throwing unit with common management, employee
skills, identity of products, and common direction of labor relations.
Because of dissimilarity of operations and products and different
management, together with a history of bargaining on a separate
basis for at least 10 years, we find that the unit comprising Atwater,
Penn, and Taylor, sought by AFL, is inappropriate.
We shall, therefore, dismiss all of the petitions herein."
[The Board dismissed the petitions.]
10 See Saco -Lowell Shops, 107 NLRB 590.
" Members Rodgers and Beeson concur in the dismissal of the CIO petition for an election
tion in a unit of employees at Taylor, but on the basis that the November 17, 1953, con-
tract between the Employer and AFL is a bar.