Manhattan Sponging Works

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 31, 1950

90 N.L.R.B. 13 (N.L.R.B. 1950)

In the Matter Of MANHATTAN SPONGING WORKS, EMPLOYER and
UNITED GARMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, A. F. OF L., PETITIONER
In the Matter Of MANHATTAN SPONGING WORKS, EMPLOYER and INTER-
NATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSE-
MEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, DEPARTMENT STORE, PACKAGE
GROCERY, PAPER HOUSE, LIQUOR AND MEAT DRIVERS, HELPERS AND
WAREHOUSEMEN, LOCAL 955, A. F. of L., PETITIONER
Cases Nos. 17-RC-634 and 17-RC-705.-Decided May 31, 1950
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon petitions duly filed, a consolidated hearing was held before
Margaret L. Fassig, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made
at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members
Houston and Styles].
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 Petitioner in Case No. 17-RC-634, United Garment Workers
of America, A. F. L., herein referred to as United Garment Workers;
the Petitioner in Case No. 17-RC-705,. International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, De-
partment Store, Package Grocery, Paper House, Liquor and Meat
Drivers, Helpers and Warehousemen, Local 955, A. F. of L., herein
referred to as Teamsters; and the Intervenor, Amalgamated Clothing
Workers of America, CIO, are labor organizations claiming to repre-
sent employees of the Employer.
3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer for the following reasons :
The Employer is engaged in the processing of fabrics for manu-
facture of men's and women's wear.. It operates two sponging plants,
one in St. Louis, Missouri, where the main office is located, and a branch
plant 250 miles away in Kansas City, Missouri. The St. Louis plant
employs 35 production and maintenance employees and 3 office workers,
90 NLRB No. 7.
13
14 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR- RELATIONS BOARD
while in the Kansas City plant approximately 25 production and
maintenance employees and 2 office workers are employed. -
In Case No. 17-RC-634 the Garment Workers seeks a production
and maintenance unit confined to the employees at the Kansas City
plant of the Employer. The Employer and the Intervenor contend
that only the existing two-plant unit is appropriate.
The operations of the Kansas City plant are identical in nature to
those performed by the St. Louis plant of the Company, and both
plants employ the same classifications of employees. Employees of
both plants are subject to the same top supervision and labor policy.
All original payroll records are kept in the St. Louis office, and all pay
checks prepared for issuance there. While routine hiring and dis-
charge of employees in the Kansas City plant is done locally, all em-
ployment policies are subject to the supervision of the Company's vice
president who periodically visits the plant. In addition all grievances.
must ultimately be brought to the attention of the St. Louis office. The
manager of the Kansas City plant makes regular trips to the St. Louis.
office to confer about any labor problems. He has no independent au-
thority to make any important decision concerning the labor relations:
problems of the Kansas City employees. There has been no regular
interchange of production and maintenance employees between the two,
plants, although there has been an interchange of executive and tech-
nical employees.
Since 1941, employees in both plants have been bargained for by the
Intervenor in a single two-plant unit. The Intervenor has negotiated
wage increases and processed grievances on behalf of the Kansas City
employees.
In the absence of bargaining history, it would appear that despite
the common supervision and labor relations policy, the employees of
the Kansas City plant might properly constitute a bargaining unit
apart from the St. Louis plant, particularly in the light of the geo-
graphical separation of the plants and the lack of interchange of
employees.' We have frequently held, however, that where, as here,
there has been a long continued bargaining history among employees
at like plants on the basis of a multiplant unit, a unit limited to em-
ployees of one such plant is not appropriate for purposes of collective
bargaining.2
1 Burgess Battery Company, 76 NLRB 820.
2 Standard Brands, Incorporated, 75 NLRB 394 ; Acme Fast Freight, Inc., 80 NLRB
079; Oregon Portland Cement Co., 83 NLRB 675.
Relying upon such decisions as Lamson Brothers Company, 59 NLRB 1561 , and Pacific
Telephone and Telegraph Co., 80 NLRB 107, the Petitioners in both cases argue that the
Board should ignore the bargaining history here, asserting that it was founded upon
illegal assistance of the Intervenor by the Employer . we find no merit in this contention.
In the cases relied upon , the Board gave no weight to bargaining history where the-
MANHATTAN SPONGING WORKS', 15
Accordingly we are of the opinion that a unit limited to the em-
ployees of the Kansas City plant is inappropriate, and we shall dismiss,
the petition filed by the Garment Workers.
In Case No. 17-RC-705 the Teamsters, Local 955, seeks a unit com-
posed of the Kansas City truck driver and his helper. Truck drivers.
have been included in the single multiplant unit bargained for by the
Intervenor. As we have found that the Kansas City and St. Louis,
plants together constitute the only appropriate bargaining unit, a unit,
confined to the truck driver and his helper at the Kansas City plant.
is inappropriate and we shall dismiss the petition filed by the,
Teamsters.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the entire record in this proceeding, the National
Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the petitions in the instant
matter be, and they hereby are, dismissed.
record revealed that the union involved had, in an appropriate proceeding , already been
found by the Board to have been illegally assisted by the Employer, or where that union.
had made no effort effectively to represent the employees sought to be severed from the
unit bargained for. The record in the instant case reveals no evidence that would
warrant giving no consideration to the bargaining history.