Marshall Field and Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 6, 1951

93 N.L.R.B. 18 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

18 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Order
Upon the basis of the entire record in this case, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the petition filed in the instant
matter be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
FIELDCREST MILLS DIVISION OF MARSHALL FIELD AND COMPANY, INC.
and AMERICAN FEDERATION OF HOSIERY WORKERS, PETITIONER. Case
No. 5-RC-729. February 6,1951
Decision and Direction
Pursuant to an amended stipulation for certification upon consent
election duly executed on October 5, 1950, by the Employer, and the
Petitioner, an election by secret ballot was held on October 17, 1950,
under the supervision of the Regional Director for the Fifth Region,
in a bargaining unit of all production and maintenance employees of
the Company, excluding office clerical employees, professional em-
ployees, guards, and supervisors.
Upon the conclusion of the election, a tally of ballots was furnished
the parties in accordance with the Rules and Regulations of the Board.
The tally showed that the votes were distributed as follows :
Approximate number of eligible voters---------------------------- 223
Void ballots----------------------------------------------------- 3
Votes cast for American Federation of Hosiery Workers------------- 104
Votes cast against participating labor organization---------------- 103
Valid votes counted----------------------------------------------- 207
Challenged ballots------------------------------------------------ 3
Valid votes counted plus challenged ballots------------------------- 210
The Petitioner challenged the ballots of Lelia Light and Catherine
Warrick on the ground that they were office clerical employees. The
Board agent challenged the ballot of Elijah Thomas Frye because
his name did not appear on the eligibility list. No objections were filed
to the conduct of the election. As the challenged ballots were sufficient
in number to affect the results of the election, the Regional Director
investigated the challenges, and on January 3, 1951, issued and duly
served on the parties his report on the challenged ballots. The Re-
gional Director recommended that all three challenges be overruled.
Thereafter, the Petitioner filed exceptions to so much of the Regional
Director's report as recommended that the challenges to the ballots of
Light and Warrick be overruled.
93 NLRB No. 12.
FIELDCREST MILLS DIVISION OF MARSHALL FIELD AND CO. 1!_'9
As no exceptions were filed with respect to Frye's ballot, we shall
adopt the Regional Director's recommendation that the challenge to
that ballot be overruled.
The Ballots of Light and Warrick
Light.-The Regional Director found that this employee takes care
of the incoming orders, issues orders to the knitting and finishing de-
partments, issues dye tickets to the dye house, sees to it that orders
are moving through the production process at the proper rate, issues
rush orders to the various departments if a lag in production occurs,
and records all incoming orders and shipments 1 Although Light has
a desk'and telephone in the office, she is carried on the mill payroll
and enjoys conditions of employment similar to those of the mill em-
ployees and different from those of the office employees. Thus, al-
though office employees are paid on a straight salary basis once a
month, Light is paid weekly on an hourly basis; unlike office employees,
she receives overtime pay; although office employees get 5 days' sick
leave and are permitted to accumulate one-half of their unused sick
leave, she gets no sick leave; unlike the office employees, she gets no
Christmas bonus; and her vacations are computed on the same basis
as the hill employees which differs substantially from the method of
computation used for the office employees. The Petitioner disputes
the Regional Director's finding that Light spends two-thirds of her
time in the mill and about one-third in the office, alleging that the
time she spends in the mill is minor. The Petitioner also disputes the
Regional Director's finding that she is under the immediate supervi-
sion of Production Forelady Bishop, alleging that she is under the
supervision of the plant manager., However, in view of the general
nature of her duties which are directly related to the production
process, and in view of the similarity of her conditions of employment
to those of the mill employees, we find that Light's interests are more
closely allied to those of the production and maintenance employees
than to the office clerical employees, and therefore properly belongs
in the production and maintenance unit.3
Warrick.-The Regional Director found that this employee keeps
a ledger containing a daily record of all work in process starting with
the knitting department and going through all operations until the
work is shipped out. She secures the examiner 's greige stock sheet
' The description of Light's duties conforms substantially to'the Petitioner' s description.
The Regional Director's findings based on his investigation are not inconsistent with the
Petitioner's own statement
2 The Regional Dnector reported that Light stated that she has never taken any direct
orders from the plant manager but takes all her orders from Bishop, her forelady.
3 The Halliard Corporattion, 90 NLRB No. 164.
20 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and the preboarding sheet, and the greige stock looping and seaming
sheets from production workers and plant clericals, and from those
sheets makes the necessary tabulations. She gets dye tickets in the
mill and from these prepares production tickets which she brings to
the boarders, another group of production workers. Once a month
she acts as an inventory clerk, physically counting the stock in the
grey examining room; from time to time she goes into the plant to
check on errors by physically counting the dye bags.4 Like Light, she
is carried on the mill payroll, and also like Light, although she has a
desk in the office, she shares conditions of employment like those of
the mill workers and distinguished from those of the office workers
with respect to mode of payment, sick leave, bonuses, overtime pay,
and vacations. The Petitioner disputes the Regional Director's find-
ings that Warrick spends about a fourth of her time in the mill and
the balance in the office. The Petitioner also contends that she is
under the supervision of the plant manager while the Employer asserts
that she reports to Production Forelady Bishop and Plant Superin-
tendent Ingram; the Regional Director made no specific finding as to
Warrick's supervision. On the basis of the undisputed facts, we are
satisfied that because of the nature of Warrick's duties which, like
those of Light, are directly related to production and in view of the
fact that she enjoys working conditions similar to those of the mill
employees, her interests are more closely allied to the mill employees
than to the office clerical employees, and therefore properly belongs
in the production and maintenance units
Accordingly, we shall overrule the challenges to the ballots of Light
and Warrick in addition to overruling the challenge of Frye's ballot.
As the results of the election may depend upon the counting of the
three ballots declared valid, we shall direct that they be opened and
counted.
Direction
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the
purposes of collective bargaining with Fieldcrest Mills Division of
Marshall Field and Company, Inc., Fieldale, Virginia, the Regional
Director for the Fifth Region shall, pursuant to the Rules and Regu-
lations of the National Labor Relations Board, within ten (10) days
from the date of this Direction, open and count the challenged ballots
of Elijah Thomas Frye, Lelia Light, and Catherine Warrick, and shall,
4 Here again there is substantial agreement as to Warrick's duties between the Peti-
tioner ' s statement and the Regional Director 's findings.
The Halliard Corporation, supra.
MEDFORD STEEL COMPANY 21
thereafter, prepare and cause to be served upon the parties a supple-
mental tally of ballots.
CHAIRMAN HERZOG and MEMBER MURDOCK took no part in the con-
sideration of the above Decision and Direction.
MEDFORD STEEL COMPANY and LARRY TURNER. Case No. 36-CA-1 ,08.
February 6,1951
Decision and Order
On December 1, 1950, Trial Examiner C. W. Whittemore issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices in violation of the Act, and recommending that it cease and
desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the
copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the
Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a sup-
porting brief.
The Board 1 has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermediate Report,
the Respondent's exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the case,
and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of
the Trial Examiner with the additions and modifications hereinafter
set forth.
1. The Respondent contends that it discharged Larry Turner be-
cause he wasted "too much time talking." On the basis of the facts
detailed in the Intermediate Report, the Trial Examiner concluded
that Turner was discharged because of his union activities. The Trial
Examiner made no finding, however, as to whether Turner had mis-
conducted himself as the Respondent asserts. The record does not
support the Respondent's defense. Manager Hawkins testified that
he received complaints of an unstated nature from Foreman C. D.
Hershiser about Turner, but Hawkins gave no testimony as to any mis-
conduct on the part of Turner, and Hawkins did not deny Turner's
credited testimony that he had never received any complaint from
Hawkins about talking excessively. Foreman Hershiser likewise ad-
mitted in his testimony that he did not complain to Turner about his
I Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, as amended , the National Labor
Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three -member
panel [Members Houston, Reynolds , and Styles].
93 NLRB No. 10.