Hoosier Factories, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 2, 1945

61 N.L.R.B. 837 (N.L.R.B. 1945)

In the Matter Of HOOSIER FACTORIES, INC., and AMALGAMATED CLOTH-
ING WORKERS OF AMERICA, C. I. O.
Case No. 13-R-2909.-Decided May, 2, 19/x.5
Mr. Lawrence J. West, of Chicago, Ill., and Mr. Ralph Rosenberg, of
Michigan City, Ind., for the Company.
Mr. Frederick P. Mett, of Chicago, Ill., and Mildred Stout, of Mich-
igan City, Ind., for the Amalgamated.
Mr. Alvin D. Blieden, of Michigan City, Ind., and Madge King, of
Galesburg, Ill., for the United.
Mr. Robert Sunmzers, of Michigan City, Ind., for the Teamsters.
Mr. Louis Cokin, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon petition duly filed by Amalgamated Clothing Workers of
America, C. I. 0., herein called the Amalgamated, alleging that a
question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation
of employees of Hoosier Factories, Inc., Michigan City, Indiana,
herein called the Company, the National Labor Relations Board pro-
vided for an appropriate hearing upon due notice before Benjamin B.
Salvaty, Jr., Trial Examiner. Said hearing was held at Michigan
City, Indiana, on April 4, 1945. At the commencement of the hearing
the Trial Examiner granted motions of United Garment Workers of
America, Local 267, A. F. of L., herein called the United, and General
Teamsters, Chauffeurs & Helpers Local Union 298, A. F. of L., herein
called the Teamsters, to intervene.' The Company, the United, the
Amalgamated, and the Teamsters appeared at and participated in the
hearing and all parties were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to
examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bear-
ing on the issues. The Trial Examiner's.rulings made at the hearing
The Teamsters intervened for the purpose of protecting its interest among certain
employees of the Company . Said employees are not involved in the instant proceeding.
61 N. L. R. B., No. 134.
837
838 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. All parties
were afforded opportunity to file briefs with the Board.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Hoosier Factories, Inc., is an Illinois corporation operating a plant
at Michigan City, Indiana, where it is engaged in the manufacture
and sale of men's pants. During 1944, 90 percent of the raw materials
used by the Company, valued in excess of $360,000, was shipped to it
from points outside the State of Indiana. During the same period
the Company shipped products valued at about $1,000,000, over 90
percent of which was shipped to points outside the State of Indiana.
The Company admits that it is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America is a labor organization
affiliated with the Congress.of Industrial Organizations, admitting to
membership employees of the Company.
United Garment Workers of America, Local 267, and General
Teamsters, Chauffeurs & Helpers Local Union 298, are labor organiza-
tions affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, admitting to
membership employees of the Company.
M. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
On March 5, 1945, the Amalgamated requested the Company to
recognize it as exclusive collective bargaining representative of the
Company's employees. The Company did not reply to this request.
On April 21, 1944, the Company and the United entered into an
exclusive bargaining contract. The contract provides that it shall
remain in effect until April 26, 1945. None of the parties contends
that the contract is a bar to this proceeding.
A statement of a Field Examiner of the Board, introduced into evi-
dence at the hearing, indicates that the Amalgamated represents a
substantial number of employees in the unit hereinafter found to be
appropriate 2
2 The Field Examiner reported that the Amalgamated presented 193 authorization cards
bearing the names of persons who appear on the Company ' s pay roll for the period ending
March 5, 1945 . There are approximately 230 employees in the appropriate unit The
United did not present any evidence of representation , but relies upon its contract as evi-
dence of its interest in the instant proceeding.
HOOSIER FACTORIES, INC. 839
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 Amalgamated urges that all production and maintenance em-
ployees of the, Company, including watchmen and shipping and
stockroom employees, but excluding truck drivers, office and clerical
employees, supervisors, and department heads, constitute an appro-
priate unit. The parties disagree, with respect to the maintenance
employees, the watchmen, floor ladies, and certain of the assistant
department heads.
The Company employs an assistant department head in its ware-
house. The parties agree that the department head in the warehouse
should be excluded. The Amalgamated and the Company would
exclude the assistant department head, while the United-would include
him. Although the assistant department head spends a majority of
his time performing manual labor, he acts as department head during
the absence of that employee and he has authority to recommend effec-
tively the hire or discharge of the other employees in the warehouse.
We conclude that the assistant department head in the warehouse is a
supervisory employee, and as such, we shall exclude him from the unit.
The Company employs an assistant department head in the cutting
department. The United would include him in the unit, while the
Amalgamated and the Company would exclude him. This employee
spends most of his time performing supervisory duties, is paid on a
salary rate, and has authority to recommend effectively the hire, dis-
charge, and discipline of any of the 20 employees in the cutting depart-
ment. We find that the assistant department head in the cutting de-
partment is a supervisory employee, and as such, we shall exclude him
from the unit.
The Company employs 4 persons in its stitching department classi-
fied as floor ladies. Each of the floor ladies supervises approximately
45 employees, and they spend all their time performing supervisory
duties. They actually discipline employees and shift persons from job
to job.' The United would include them in the unit, while the Company
and the Amalgamated would exclude them. We conclude that the
floor ladies are supervisory employees, and as such, we shall exclude
them from the unit.
The Company employs an assistant department head in its stock
and shipping department. , The Company and the Amalgamated
would exclude him from the unit, while the United would include him.
The record indicates that this employee spends all his time performing
supervisory duties and that he can discipline and recommend effec-
840 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tively the hire or discharge of the 20 employees in his department. We
conclude that he is a supervisory employee, and as such, we shall
exclude him from the unit.
The Company employs three maintenance employees and six watch-
men. The Amalgamated would include both groups in the unit, while
the Company and the United would exclude them. Neither group has
been covered by the contract between the Company and the United,
alluded to above. Since maintenance employees and watchmen have
not been inchided in the contractual unit that has existed for many
years, we shall exclude them from the unit.3
We find that all production employees of the Company, including
shipping and stockroom employees, but excluding maintenance em-
ployees, watchmen, truck drivers, office and clerical employees, depart-
ment heads in the warehouse, cutting department, and, stock and
shipping department, floor ladies in the stitching department, and any
other supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, dis-
charge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of em-
ployees, or effectively recommend such action, constitute a unit appro-
priate for the purposes of collective bargaining, 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 means of an election by secret ballot among
the employees in the appropriate unit who were employed during the
pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of the Direction of
Election 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 Rela-
tions Board Rules and Regulations-Series 3, as amended , it is hereby
DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation to ascertain representa-
tives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Hoosier Factories,
Inc., Michigan City, Indiana, 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 Thirteenth Region, acting in this matter as
agent for the National Labor Relations Board, and subject to Article
8 See Mattter of C. J. Petersen and C. F. Lytle, d/b/a Petersen & Lytle, 60 N L. R. B.
1070.
HOOSIER FACTORIES , INC. 841
III, Sections 10 and 11, of said Rules and Regulations , among the
employees in the unit found appropriate in Section IV, above, who
were employed during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the
elate of this Direction, including employees who did not work during
the said pay -roll period because they were ill or on vacation or tem-
porarily laid off, and including employees in the armed forces of the
United States who present themselves in person at the polls, but ex-
cluding any who have since quit or been discharged for cause and have
not been rehired or reinstated prior to the date of the election, to
determine whether they desire to be represented by Amalgamated
Clothing Workers of America, C. I. 0., or by United Garment Work-
ers of America , Local 267, A. F. of L., for the purposes of collective
bargaining , or by neither.