Martinsville Cotton Mill Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 3, 1944

57 N.L.R.B. 880 (N.L.R.B. 1944)

In the Matter of MARTINSVILLE COTTON MILL COMPANY, INC.1 and
TEXTILE WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, C. I. O.
Case No. 5-B-1599.-Decided August 3, 1944
Messrs. Guthrie , Pierce , and Blakeney , by Mr. W. S. Blakeney, of
Charlotte , N. C., for the Company.
Mr. Harold Griffiths, of Spray, N . C., for the Union.
Mr. David V. Easton, of counsel to the Board.
e
DECISION-
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a petition duly filed by Textile Workers Union of America,
C. I. 0., herein called the Union, alleging that a question affecting
commerce had arisen concerning the representation of employees of
Martinsville Cotton Mill Company, Inc., Martinsville, Virginia,
herein called the Company, the National Labor Relations Board pro-
vided for an appropriate hearing upon due notice before Herman
Goldberg, Trial Examiner. Said hearing-was held, at Martinsville,
Virginia, on June 23, 1944. The Company and the Union appeared,
participated, and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to ex-
amine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing
on the issues. At the hearing, the Company moved to dismiss the peti-
tion. The Trial Examiner referred this motion to the Board. For
reasons set forth in Section III, infra, the motion is denied. The Trial
Examiner's rulings made at the hearing 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
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Martinsville Cotton Mill Company, Inc., a Virginia Corporation,
is a subsidiary of Chadwick-Hoskins Company, a North Carolina
I The name of the Company is amended to read as written above in view of evidence
disclosed at the hearing.
57 N. L. R. B., No. 142.
880
MARTINSVILLE COTTON MILL COMPANY, INC.
corporation, and is principally engaged in the manufacture of print
cloths. It operates a single plant. located in Martinsville, Virginia,
with which we are concerned herein. During the year 1943, the Com-
pany purchased for use at its plant raw materials, consisting primarily
of coal, cotton, cotton yarn, and other items of supplies, -valued at
approximately $500,000, almost all of which were obtained from points
outside the, State of Virginia. 'During the same period, the Company
manufactured finished products valued between $800,000 and $900,000,
almost all of which were sold outside the State of Virginia.
We'find that the Company is engaged in commerce within the m ean'-
ing of the National Labor Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Textile Workers Union ' of America is a labor organization aflili-,
•ated with the Congress of 'Industrial Organizations, admitting to
membership employees of the Company.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Company refuses to recognize the Union as the collective bar-
gaining representative of its employees, and urges the dismissal of
the present petition.
The Company bases its position upon the following facts : On
February 15, 1944, the Union filed a Petition for Investigation and'
,Certification of Representatives of the Company's employees.2 On
March 1, the Company and the Union entered into a Stipulation for
Certification Upon Consent Election and, pursuant thereto,, an elec-
tion was held on' March 17 in which the Union was defeated. On
March 29 the Union filed Objections to the election, and on April 19
the Regional Director issued his Report on Objections, recommending-
that the Objections be sustained and the election voided. Thereafter,
on April 24, 1944, the Company filed Exceptions to the Regional'
Di'rector's Report and requested that a' hearing be held upon the
Objections. On May 26, 1944, the Union requested that the Board
permit it to withdraw its petition and the Objections to the election
"in the hopes that- [the Union] may be able within the near future to
hold another election . . . ." On May 29, 1944, the Board issued an
Order Permitting Withdrawal of Petition.
The Company contends, in substance, that no election should be held
at the-present time because (1) it has not been given an opportunity to
present evidence with respect to the Objections filed by the Union, and
(2) a recent valid and decisive election had been held. We do not agree
with these contentions. We are of the opinion that the subject matter
s Case No. 5-R-1511.
601248-45-vol 57-57
0
i
882 DECISIONS, OF, NATIONAL LABOR % RELATIONS BOARD
of objections to an election conducted in a prior -proceeding is not
germane to issues raised in a new, representation proceeding. Further-
more, the Union submitted, as- hereinafter indicated, a substantial
number, of designations signed by employees, of the Company sub-
sequent to the date of the election held in the previous proceeding.;
A report of a Field, Examiner for the Board, introduced into evi-
dence at the hearing, as supplemented by a statement made on the
record by the Trial Examiner, indicates that,the Union`represents,a
substantial number of employees in the unit hereinafter found
appropriate.',
We find that a question affecting commence 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 APPROPRIA'l E UNIT
•- t
In the consent election agreement. previously referred to, the Com-
pany and,the Union agreed that "all production employees [of--the
Company],, including watchmen, maintenance men', truck drivers,
excluding overseers, . .. second hands, office help and supervisory
staff,•iind all supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote,
discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the, status of em-
ployees, or effectively recommend such action" constituted an appro-
priate unit. In the instant proceeding, the Union seeks a unit com-
prised of all production employees, except for overseers, second hands,
office help, supervisory staff, watchmen, maintenance lien, and 'truck
drivers. The Company urges thh the'bnly'appropriate unit is that'set
forth in'the consent election agreement.5
We are of the opinion that the watchmen (who are non-nnlitar.zed),
niaintenalice men, and truck drivers of the Company,, may properly
3 See Matter of Wagner Electric Corporation,, 53 N. L R B. 543.
The Field Examiner reported that the Union submitted 87 designations bearing ap-
parently genuine original signatures, that 84 of these cards were signed, subsequent to
march 17, 1944, and 2 bore no date ; and that there are 171 employees in the appropriate
unit. The Trial Examiner stated that the Union' submitted 5 additional designations` at
the hearing, bearing apparently genuine original signatures, and that 1 of these, dated
June 20, contained the name of a person appearing upon the Company's pay roll of
February 20, 1944, the only pay roll available to him at the time he made his check. He
further stated that, since the other 4 designations were alleged to be signed by employees
of the Company who were engaged subsequent to February 20, 1944, he was unable to
state whether or not these persons are engaged by the Company
5 The proposed unit, as contained in the petition filed in this proceeding, is similar to
that in the consen t 'election agreement At the hearing, however, the Union indicated
for the first time that it desired to exclude watchmen, maintenance men, and truck drivers.
e The watchmen and the maintenance employees are both under the supervision of the
overseer of the repair shop The truck driver, who performs miscellaneous duties in and
about the plant in addition to driving the truck, also appears to be under the supervision
of this overseer.
MARTINSVILLE -COTTON MILL COMPANY, INC. •, 883
be included within the same unit. as production employees.7 Moreover,
the Union stated at the hearing that it, would be wilyling to participate
el.
in an election directed among employees in the unit described' in the
prior consent election agreement.
Accordingly, we find that all production employees of the Company;,
including watchmen, maintenance 'men, and truck drivers, but ex-
cluding office help, overseers, second hands, and all other supervisory
employees with authority,to hire,- promote, discharge, discipline, or
otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or effectively rec-
ommend such action, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of
,collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b)' of the Act.
V. TIIE,DETERDfINATION 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-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 NationalLabor
Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act,
and pursuant to Article III, Section 9, of National Labor Relations
-Board Rules andRegulations-Series 3, as amended, it is hereby
DIREC71mm that, as part of ,the-investigation to ascertain representa-
tives for the purposes of collective bargaining with, Martinsville Cot-
ton Mill Company, Inc., Martinsville, Virginia, 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 Fifth Region, acting in
this matter as agent for the National Labor Relations Board, and sub-
ject to Article III, Sections 10 and 11i of said Rules and Regulations
among the employees in the ti-it found' appropriate in Section IV,
above, who were employed during the pay-roll period inimedlateli pre-
ceding 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 employees in the armed forces
' For substantially similar units, see Matter of American Woolen Company, 52 N L R B
415; Matter of Fickett -Brown Manufacturing Company , Inc,-53 N. L. R B. 106 , Matte,
of P II- Hanes Knitting Coynpang , 52' N L . R B. 746; and Matter of Illinois Knitting
Companif, 53 N L R B 1216
884 DECISIONS OF, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of the United States who present themselves in person at the, polls, 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, to determine whether or not they desire to be represented by
Textile Workers Union of America, C. I. 0., for the purposes of collec-
tive_bargaining.
CHAIRMAN MILLIs took no .part';i3n the consideration of the above
Decision and'Direction of Election.
t