Laycob Hat Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 23, 1950

88 N.L.R.B. 257 (N.L.R.B. 1950)

In the Matter of LAYCOB HAT COMPANY,' EMPLOYER and TEXTILE
WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER
In the Matter of LAYCOB HAT COMPANY, EMPLOYER and UNITED HAT-
TERS, CAP AND MILLINERY WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, AFL,2
PETITIONER
Cases Nos . 14-RC-509 and 14-RC-869.-Decided January 23, 1950
DECISION
ORDER
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon petitions duly filed, a consolidated hearing was held before
Glenn L. Moller, 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
National Labor Relations Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists in Case No. 14-RC-809
concerning the representation of employees of the Employer within
the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the
Act.
The Petitioner in Case No. 14-RC-869, United Hatters, Cap and
Millinery Workers International Union, AFL, herein called the AFL,
moved to withdraw its petition. Ruling on -this motion was reserved
for the Board. The Employer, in its brief, opposes the motion. As
the withdrawal of the AFL's petition will not prejudice the rights
of any party, the AFL's motion is hereby granted 3 We therefore find
that no question concerning the representation of the Employer's
employees exists in Case No. 14-RC-869.
The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing.
The name of the Petitioner in Case No . 14-RC-869 appears as amended at the hearing.
American Radiator S Standard Sanitary Corporation , 67 NLRB 1135, at page 1136 ; see
also Pacific American Shipowners Association , 80 NLRB 622.
88 NLRB No. 65.
257
258 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
4. In Case No. 14-RC-809, the Petitioner, Textile Workers Union
of America, CIO, herein called the CIO, seeks a unit of all production
and maintenance employees, excluding operators, cutters, blockers,
trimmers, designers, makers, and repairers on millinery .4 The AFL
supports the CIO's unit contention. The Employer insists that the
unit-should be plant-wide, embracing both skilled employees and floor
help. All parties would also exclude salesmen, clerical employees, and
supervisors.5
The unit sought by the CIO is essentially a residual unit covering
employees not contained in the bargaining unit long since and cur-
rently represented by the AFL. We have heretofore found such a
residual unit appropriate as a supplement to an already recognized
appropriate bargaining unit.' The appropriateness of the CIO's pro-
posed unit depends, therefore, upon whether or not the AFL's contract
covers an appropriate unit.
The Employer is engaged in the manufacture and sale of millinery
and handbags at its only plant'in St. Louis, Missouri. It employs
approximately 150 employees, and occupies 1 loft floor, with parti-
tioned offices. The production employees are divided roughly into
2 classes, the skilled employees, who comprise the group bargained for
by the AFL, and "floor help," who comprise the large majority of the
employees sought by the CIO. The skilled employees consist of
sewing machine operators (who operate sewing machines), cutters
(who cut material and cardboard), blockers (who size and block),
trin.iners (who perform hand-sewing), and makers. Floor help are
essentially unskilled production employees, but the term is also applied
to employees of the shipping department.
The manufacturer's association of which the Employer is a member
sponsors a school for the training of apprentices. All the skilled
employees are hired from the outside, either by calling the AFL or
by advertising. Apprentice skilled workers start at the apprentice
rate and work up to the journeyman's rate. The Employer has never
progressed any floor help to positions as skilled workers.
The skilled employees work alongside the floor help, are not sep-
arately supervised, and do not constitute a separate departmental
group or recognized craft group. However, their work requires the
exercise of greater skills than that of the floor help, and they are higher
paid-receiving from 98 cents to $1.48 per hour. as compared to the
'The unit is described as amended at the hearing. The excluded categories comprise
those employees covered by the AFL's current contract.
The Employer does not employ any watchmen or professional employees.
Rockford Drop Forge Co., 73 NLRB 26; Pepeekeo Sugar Company at al., 59 NLRB 1532 ;
General Electric Company, 54 NLRB 1299; and Detroit Incinerator Co., 45 NLRB 414.
LAYCOB HAT COMPANY 259
40 cents to 75 cents per hour received by floor help.7 Moreover, since
1932 the AFL has bargained for them as a separate unit under a series
of contracts with the Employer, the last of which is a 3-year agreement
executed January 1,1949.$ There is no history of bargaining covering
any other employees in the plant.
Under these circumstances, and particularly in view of the long
history of bargaining covering them, we conclude that the skilled
employees as a group comprise an appropriate unit,0 and that the
unit sought by the CIO is appropriate as a supplement to the unit of
skilled employees currently represented by the AFL.
The Employer maintains that the bargaining history should not
be controlling here because of a change which occurred in the Em-
ployer's operations. This contention is clearly without merit. While
it is true that the Board will not consider collective bargaining his-
tory controlling where the Employer's operations have undergone a
fundamental change,1° there has been no such substantial change here.:"
Furthermore, on January 1, 1949-several years after the alleged fun-
damental change-the Employer again entered into contractual rela-
tions with the AFL with respect to the skilled employees only.
There remains for consideration the unit placement of an employee
who divides his time between maintenance work, production work,
and running errands. The CIO would exclude him from the unit;
the Employer and the AFL expressed no preference as to his unit
placement. On the record before us, we are of the opinion that this
employee has a community of interests with the other employees in
the unit. Accordingly, we shall include him.
We find that all production and maintenance employees of the Em-
ployer,12 excluding blockers, cutters, operators, makers, trimmers, and
T Apprentice skilled workers receive 75 percent of the journeymen 's rates.
8 No party contends that this contract constitutes a bar to a present election.
° See Illinois Cities Water Company, 87 NLRB 109. Members Houston and Murdock,
although they dissented in that case , consider themselves bound by the majority decision
therein.
Mutual Rough flat Company, 86 NLRB 440 , cited by the Employer , is distinguishable.
There, unlike the instant case, there was no previous collective bargaining history. Like-
wise, we find no merit in the Employer's contention that we should not give weight to any
"deal" between the AFL and the CIO, as we rely, not on any such arrangement, but on
the 17-year collective bargaining history in which the Employer itself participated. The
cases relied upon by the Employer to support this contention are therefore not in point.
"Marshall Stove Company, 57 NLRB 375.
" In 1937, conforming to a new style , the Employer started making sets consisting of hats
and bags to match. The bags at that time were "4 cornered" bags which consisted of two
rectangular pieces of material sewn together. In 1946 , the box type bag came into demand.
These bags require the insertion of cardboard for stiffening . We do not consider these
changes fundamental.
12 Including the employee who divides his time between maintenance work, production, and
running errands.
Chester Laycob was described by a witness as "the boss ' son." As he appears to be the
son of a high management official, we shall exclude him from the unit. Broadway Iron
882191-51-18
260 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
their apprentices, salesmen, clerical employees, and supervisors as
defined in the Act,13 constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes
of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of
the Act.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion of United Hatters, Cap and
Millinery Workers International Union, AFL, to withdraw its peti-
tion in Case No. 14-RC-869, be, and it hereby is, granted.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining with the Employer, an election by secret
ballot shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later than 30
days from the date of this Direction, under the direction and super-
vision of the Regional Director for the Region in which this case was
heard, and subject to Sections 203.61 and 203.62 of National Labor
Relations Board Rules and Regulations, among the employees in the
unit found appropriate in paragraph numbered 4, above, who were em-
played during the payroll period immediately preceding the date of
this Direction of Election, including employees who did not work dur-
ing said payroll period because they were ill or on vacation or tem-
porarily laid off, but excluding those employees who have since quit or
been discharged for cause and have not been rehired or reinstated prior
to the date of the election, and also excluding employees on strike who
are not entitled to reinstatement, to determine whether or not they de-
sire to be represented, for purposes of collective bargaining by Textile
Workers Union of America, CIO.14
and Pipe Corporation, 83 NLRB 942; Was. P. McDonald, 83 NLRB 427; Alabama Brick &
Tile Company, Inc., 80 NLRB 1365; and Associated Electronic Enterprises, Inc., 80
NLRB 295.
13 The parties apparently agree that Jack Cohen, David Laycob, Ruth Kaestner, Marie
Vaughn, and Paul Laycob are supervisors within the meaning of the Act.
14 The AFL stated that it did not desire to appear on the ballot. Accordingly, its name
has been omitted.