Hoosac Mills Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 5, 1943

47 N.L.R.B. 3161 (N.L.R.B. 1943)

In the Matter of MORGAN BUTLER, AS HE Is RECEIVER OF HOOSAC MILLS
CORPORATION NEW BEDFORD DIVISION) and TEXTILE WORKERS UNION
OF AMERICA, (C. I. 0.) and NEW BEDFORD TEXTILE COUNCIL, AFFILI-
ATED WITH UNITED TEXTILE WORKERS OF AMERICA OF THE AMERICAN
FEDERATION OF LABOR
Case No. RE-56.-Decided March 5, 1943
Jurisdiction : textile manufacturing industry. '
Investigation and Certification of Representatives : existence of question: con-
flicting claims of rival representatives; election necessary.
Unit Appropriate for Collective Bargaining : single-employer unit confined to
all production and maintenance employees, with specified exclusions, of a cotton
milling company found appropriate, notwithstanding contention of one of the
unions that such employer be included with employees of other companies
represented by a cotton mill association of which it was a member, when com-
pany did not consider itself bound by association action and had frequently
bargained independently.
Mr. Clifford H. Byrnes, of Boston, Mass., for the Company.
Mr. Jacob Minkin, of Boston, Mass., for the Council and for the
Firemen and Oilers.
Mr. Isadore Katz, of New York City, for the C. I. O.
Mr. S. P. Jason, of New Bedford, Mass., and Roewer & Reel, by
Mr. George F. Roewer, of Boston, Mass., for the Teamsters.
Mr. Arthur Leff, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon petition duly filed by Morgan Butler, Receiver of Hoosac Mills
Corporation, herein called the Company, alleging that a question
affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation of em-
ployees of the Company at New Bedford, Massachusetts, the National
Labor Relations Board provided for an appropriate hearing upon due
notice before Samuel G. Zack, Trial Examiner. Said hearing was
held at New Bedford, Massachusetts, on January 4, 1943. The Com-
pany, New Bedford Textile Council, herein called the Council, Local
47 N L. R B., No. 176.
513024-43-vol 47-86 3161
1362 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
No. 294 of the International Brotherhood of Firemen, Oilers and
Helpers of America, herein called the Firemen and Oilers, Textile
Workers Union of America (C. I. 0.), herein called the C. I. 0., and
Local No. 59, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America, herein called the Teamsters,
appeared, participated, and were afforded full opportunity to be
heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evi-
dence bearing on the issues. The Trial Examiner's rulings made at
the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Following the hearing, the Council, the C. I. 0., and the Teamsters
-filed briefs which the Board has considered.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Morgan Butler is the Receiver of Hoosac Mills Corporation, which
is in receivership in the United States District Court, District of
Massachusetts. The Company is engaged in the business of manu-
facturing cotton textiles. The Company operates mills located, at
Taunton, Massachusetts, and New Bedford, Massachusetts. Only Its
New Bedford division is involved in this proceeding. During the
year ending November 28, 1942, the Company used raw material con-
sisting of cotton of the approximate value of $2,250,000, all of which
was received by it from points_ outside the Commonwealth of Massa-
chusetts. Durinb the same period, the Company manufactured
finished products having a value of approximately'$5,000,000, between
97 and 98 percent of which was shipped to points outside the Com-
monwealth of Massachusetts. We find that the Company is engaged
in commerce within the meaning of-the National Labor Relations
Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
New Bedford Textile Council is a labor organization composed of
a number of craft unions, all but one of which are also affiliated with
United Textile Workers of America of the American Federation of
Labor. The Council, through its affiliated locals, admits to member-
ship various classes of employees of the Company.'
'The following local labor organizations in New Bedford , Massachusetts , are affiliated
with and are reps esented by the Council . Cardei s & Ring Spinnei s Union , Knotters
Union , Loom Fixeis Union , Maintenance Men's Union, Yarn Finishers ' Union , Shearer
Tenders' and Cloth Room Worl:eis' Union, Slasher Tendeis' Union, Warp Twister's Union,
Weaver's Union; and Local No 294 of the Firemen and Oilers The last mentioned
local although affiliated with the Council and represented by it for certain purposes
is not affiliated with United Textile Workers of America but is affiliated with another
International labor organization as hemeinabove noted
MORGAN BUTLER 1363
- International Brotherhood of Firemen, Oilers and Helpers of
-America and its Local No. 294, are labor organizations, affiliated with
the American Federation of Labor, admitting to membership certain
employees of the Colnpany.2
Textile Workers Union of America is a labor organization, affiliated
with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, admitting to member-
ship employees of the Company.
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse-
-men and Helpers of America and its Local No. 59, are labor organiza-
-tions, affiliated,with the American Federation of Labor, admitting to
-membership certain employees of the Company.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
On October 27, 1942, the C. I. O. wrote the Company, requesting
recognition as the bargaining representative of the Company's em-
ployees. At that time there was in force a written collective bargain-
ing agreement, dated November 19, 1941, between the Company and
the Council covering employees whom the C. I. O. claimed to represent
and which by its terms was terminable on January 31, 1943, by either
party upon 90 days prior notice.' Because of the conflicting claims
of representation asserted by the C. I. O. and the Council, the Company
by its petition referred the matter to the Board for investigation.
We find that all production and maintenance employees of the
Company, excluding all executive and supervisory employees ( second
hands and up), office and clerical employees, warehousemen and yard-
men, constitute, a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
We shall direct that the question concerning representation which
has arisen be resolved by an election by secret ballot among the em-
ployees in the -appropriate unit who were employed during the pay-
3 The Firemen and Oilers , although appearing separately, was represented in this
proceeding by the attorney also representing the Council As noted in footnote 3, infra,
following the heaiing its attorney stated to the Board in substance that for all purposes
in this proceeding the Firemen and Oilers was to be considered part of the Council , and that
it was not taking any independent position
2 Thei e was also a closed-shop contract in force between the Company and the Teamsters
covering warehousemen and yardmen employed by the Company The Teamsters, al-
though not made a paity by the petition , intervened in this proceeding. At the oral argu-
ment before the Board in the related case of Matter of New Bedford Cotton Manufacturers
,tscoeiation and Tevtile Wortera Union of A merica (Case No Rh;-54), 47 N L R B 1245,
at which counsel representing all of the labor orga nizations involved in the instant case
appeared, it was stipulated in substance by said counsel that neither the C I 0 nor the
-Council claimed to represent any of the employees of the Coriipaily covered by the Team-
steis ' contract , and that there was no question of representation concerning such em-
ployees It was on the occasion of said of al argument that the statement conceinuig
,the Firemen and Oilers , referred to in footnote 2, was made
0
1364, DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
roll period immediately preceding the date of our Direction of Elec-
tion herein, subject to the limitations and additions set forth in the
Direction.
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, and pursuant to Article III, Section 9, of National Labor Re-
lations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 2, as amended, it is hereby
DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation to ascertain representa-
tives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Morgan Butler,
Receiver of Hoosac Mills Corporation (New Bedford Division), New
Bedford, Massachusetts, an election by secret ballot shall be conducted
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 First Region, acting in this-matter as agent for the
National Labor Relations Board, and subject to Article III, Section
10, of said Rules and Regulations, among the employees of Morgan
Butler, as Receiver of Hoosac Mills Corporation (New Bedfdrd Divi-
sion), New Bedford, Massachusetts, within the unit found appropri-
ate 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, and including em-
ployees in the armed forces of the United States who present them-
selves in person at the polls, but excluding any who have since quit
or been discharged for cause, to determine whether they desire to be
represented by New Bedford Textile Council, affiliated with United
Textile Workers of America of the American Federation of Labor, or
by Textile Workers Union of America (C.1I. 0.), for the purposes of
collective bargaining, or by neither.
A statement of the Regional Director, introduced into evidence at
the hearing, indicates that the C. I. O: represents a substantial number
of the employees in the unit hereinafter found appropriate.'
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning
the representation of employees of the Company within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The C. I. O. and the Council are in substantial agreement that the
appropriate unit should consist of all production and maintenance
employees, excluding executive and supervisory employees (second
4 The statement shows that the C 1 0 submitted a total of 341 membership cards
bearing apparently genuine signatures , puiported to be signed by employees of the Com-
pany 's New Bedford Division The employer's petition chow 's that there are approxi-
mately 1106 employees in the Company 's New Bedford Divrcion
MORGAN 'BUTLER ,1365
hands and up), office and clerical employees, warehousemen and yard-
men. While agreeing on the employee categories, the C. I. O. and
the Council take issue on the question concerning the size of the unit.
The C. I. O. claims that only employees of the Company employed
at its New Bedford Division should be included in the appropriate unit.
The Council on the other hand would group in a single unit all em-
ployees within the categories mentioned employed at all New Bed-
ford, Massachusetts, textile mills engaged in the manufacture of fine
cotton goods. The Company has taken no position with reference to
the appropriate unit.
There are today in New Bedford 11 mills, including the Company,
in the class generally known as fine cotton goods mills. Of these, 9
mills have been organized in an association group known as the New
Bedford Cotton Manufacturers Association and have traditionally
conducted their collective bargaining through the Association on do
association-wide basis.6 The Company, however, is not a member
of the Association. The Company has conducted its own collective
bargaining negotiations, separately from the Association, and has
entered into agreements independently. The Receiver for the Com-
pany testified that the Company in its labor relations and negotiations
followed the lead of the Association "by and large, but not necessarily
so." The Company has not authorized the Association to bargain on
its behalf, and it does not consider itself bound by Association action.
On the basis of these facts and upon the entire record in this case, we
find that it would be inappropriate to include employees of the Com-
pany with employees of the Association members in 'a single unit for
the purposes of collective bargaining.'
At the hearing the C I 0 had requested the inclusion of receiving and shipping
employees but later modified its position in this respect, as indicated in footnote 3, above.
O See New Bedfo, d Cotton Manufacturers Association and Textile We, leers Union of
America, et al', (Case No RE-54), 47 N L R. B 1345
7 See Matter of Monon Stone Company and Quarry Workers' International Union of Nost/
America, 10 N L R B 64.