Michele Frocks

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 10, 1958

121 N.L.R.B. 1273 (N.L.R.B. 1958)

MICHELE FROCKS 1273
Austreng is guaranteed a 52-hour week and is the highest paid ware-
house employee But for Austreng, the Employer's president and
his assistant would exercise the only supervision over the warehouse's
day-to-day operations
Upon the entire record, we find, as did the hearing officer, that
Austreng responsibly directs the work of the warehouse employees
and that he is a supervisor within the meaning of the7Act We con-
clude that Austreng was ineligible to vote in the election and we
hereby sustain the challenge to his ballot, as recommended by the
hearing officer
As the Petitioner has received a majority of the votes cast in the
election, we shall certify it as representative of the employees in the
appropriate unit
[The Board certified General Drivers & Warehouse Eilaployees,
Local 581, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen & Helpers of America as the designated collective bar-
gaining representative of the employees in the unit found appropriate ]
CHAIRMAN LEEDOM and MEMBER. FANNING took no part in the con-
sideration of the above Second Supplemental Decision and Certifica-
tion of Representatives
John St. George, d/b/a Michele Frocks,* Petitioner and Local
No. 109, International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union,
AFL-CIO
John St. George, d/b/a Michele Frocks and Michele Employees
Independent Union , Petitioner. Cases Nos 4-RM-290 and
4-RC-3658 October 10, 1958
DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, and thereafter consolidated, a hearing was held before
Bernard Samoff, 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 [Members Rodgers, Jenkins, and
Fanning]
*On December 5, 1958, the Board granted the Petitioner 's motion to amend the above
Decision, Order, and Direction of Election by striking therefrom the name "John
St George , d/b/a Michele Frocks" and substituting therefor the name "James Patti,
d/b/a Michele Frocks" wherever it appears therein
The Board denied the motion to vacate or suspend the Decision , Order, and Direction
of Election filed by the Intervenor on October 16, 1958
121 NLRB No 163
1274 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
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 concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section
9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The petitions here concern units in the women's garment industry.
The Employer operates 2 plants known as Michele Frocks, one at 210
North Main Street in Scranton, and oneapproximately 12 miles away
at 601 Washington Avenue in Jermyn, Pennsylvania. It requests a
two-plant unit for the employees of these plants. The, petitioning
Union requests a unit limited to the Michele employees in Scranton.
At the hearing both the Employer and the petitioning Union stated
a willingness to accept the unit sought by the other.
Local 109 of the ILGWTJ was named in both petitions as claiming
recognition for the employees concerned, and participated fully in the
hearing. It contends that John St. George, doing business as Michele
Frocks, is not a separate Employer but that his operations are related
to his function as manager for production and in charge of labor
relations for Harvic Sportswear at its plant on Capouse Avenue in
Scranton. It also urges that the minimum appropriate unit for the
employees in question should include-in addition to the Michele
employees in Scranton and Jermyn-the Harvic employees on
Capouse Avenue in Scranton.'
The Harvic employees have been covered in a multiemployer bar-
gaining unit under a contract between the Pennsylvania Garment
Manufacturers Association (also referred to in the record as Penn-
sylvania Dress Manufacturers Association), of which St. George is a
director, and the Northeast Division of the ILGWTT, covering "shops
of all present and future members." This contract expired early in
1958. it provides that no work was to be subcontracted except to
union shops. The Michele plants, which started operating during the
effective period of this contract, have not been organized, and St.
George testified that they have at times been used to subcontract Har-
vic work. An offer of proof that St. George had acquiesced in Inter-
venor's claim that the contract covered the Michele plants, but had
requested time within which to bring them under it, was refused by
the hearing officer 2 Since March 1958 the Intervenor has picketed
'The employees of an additional Harvic plant in Luzerne; County, Pennsylvania, are
also represented by the ILGWU. How the operation of this plant relates to the operation
of the Harvic Scranton plant was not developed at the hearing.
2 On the basis of this alleged contractual interest, however , the hearing officer permitted
the -ILGWU to-intervene specifically in Case No. 4-RC-3658 near the close of the hearing,
over objection of the Petitioner in that case.
MICHELE FROCKS 1275
the Michele plants with signs saying that the plant is on strike or that
"Mama is on strike." Apparently the picket signs have not used the
Michele name. Whether they have used the Harvic name does not
appear. A representation petition filed by the Pennsylvania Garment
Manufacturers Association is now pending before the Board 3 in which
the employer group seeks an associationwide unit, including some 265
plants or companies of which Harvic is one.
Testimony at the hearing indicated that the Scranton Michele plant
was employing approximately 17,4 and the Jermyn plant approxi-
mately 7 5 Harvic Sportswear's plant in Scranton was not operating
at the time of hearing.
Each of the Michele plants has separate supervision. Ordinarily
each finishes its own work. On occasion, however, personnel may be
moved from one plant to the other, as well as garments or parts of
garments-whatever is necessary to complete work and make shipment.
St. George does the purchasing for both plants, but hiring is done by
local supervision.- Shipments are made from both plants. Selling is
done through a jobber. Payroll records are kept at the Scranton plant
for-Michele employees, but testimony indicates that additional payroll
records are kept there which are not limited to Michele employees. At
least one Michele employee was paid with Harvic checks and a Harvic
employee has in the past made out the checks for Michele employees.
- The petitioning Union elicited testimony of St. George that the
Scranton Michele plant, whose employees it was specifically organized
to represent, are mostly married women and are given the option of
working hours selected by them during the daily period the plant is
open from 7 a. m. until 10 p. m. Thus they are allowed to adjust their
working time to their family needs. Whether this is also true of the
Jermyn employees, or of the Harvic Scranton employees, does not
appear. Apparently there is little employee contact between the
Scranton Michele and Jermyn plants, for the employee who is presi-
dent of the petitioning Union testified that she knew none of the em-
ployees at Jermyn and did not know what kind of work was performed
there.
The record shows that Harvic makes no complete garments but that
the Michele plants do. Harvic employees have sewn part of garments
finished at Michele. - There is also testimony that subcontracting sec-
tions of a garment, and the interchange of personnel to help out other
contractors, is characteristic of the garment industry as a whole.
s Case No. 4-RM-267 (unpublished).
* Attorney for the petitioning Union, however, testified that his client was "a new
union consisting of 28 employees out of a total of 36 now employed" at the Michele
Scranton plant
6 Attorney for the Employer stated that the Jermyn plant operates "when it has work."
1276 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Concerning this testimony Intervenor admits in its brief that it "would
be the last to suggest" that such practice is "confined to Michele and
Harvic plants."
Intervenor introduced evidence tending to cast doubt upon St.
George's proprietary interest in the Michele plants, including St.
George's testimony that he is using a Harvic truck as well as Harvic
machinery for which he has no bill of sale, that he has no "visible"
leasing arrangement or indication of ownership or right to possession
of the Michele premises; although he claims to pay rent; that the
Pennsylvania fictitious business name registration for,Michele in
Scranton was taken out in January 1958, rather than a year or more
earlier when St. George claims to have established the plant; that this
certificate lists as Michele's address the Harvic address on Capouse
Avenue rather than the Michele address on Main Street, 3 miles away;
that the Michele premises, at Jermyn, carried no identifying sign at
the time of hearing but carried a, "Ronnie Dee" sign before that time,
and that "Ronnie Dee" was registered by another person at the Jermyn
location in 1957, and that no registration for operation at that, loca-
tion by St. George as "Michele" appears in the Pennsylvania records
although St. George claims to have bought from a purchaser of the
earlier registrant "approximately 1 year" before hearing.
The ILGWU would dismiss both petitions as requesting inappro-
priate units in the light of established bargaining history. It claims
that the Michele plants have been "subject to" the collective-bargaining
agreement between it and the Pennsylvania Garment Manufacturers
Association recently expired. On the record, however, it is clear that
whatever contract claims the ILGWU may have made concerning the
Michele plants and whatever St. George's response may have been,
Michele employees have not, in fact, been bargained for. It is also
clear that, although the ILGWU has attempted to do so, it has not
established here that St. George doing business as Michele Frocks,
and Harvic Sportswear, together constitute a single employer. In
these circumstances we find that there is no history of bargaining on
a broader basis affecting the Michele employees such as to preclude a
finding that they themselves constitute an appropriate unit,6 either
on a two-plant basis as requested by the Employer or on the single
plant at Scranton basis as requested by the Independent. We would
not, therefore, dismiss the petitions on the grounds urged by the
ILGWU.
Concerning now the unit appropriate for Michele employees alone,
there are factors here which indicate that a two-plant unit would be
feasible. These are the work similarity at the Scranton and the Jermyn
6 Compare Thos. & Geo. M . Stone, Inc., 120 NLRB 480, where the operations of two of
the employers in a multlemployer unit were found to be so integrated as to constitute them
a single employer and their employees indistinguishable for unit purposes.
SEALTEST SOUTHERN DAIRIES DIVISION 1277
plants, the fact that there is some employee interchange, and the
common overall management. However, there are other factors which
we consider persuasive, which 'justify a finding that a unit confined
to the Michele Scranton employees is appropriate. These are the
separate. locations of the plants some miles apart and the lack of
community of interest between the two groups as testified to on the
record, the separate immediate supervision and hiring which obtain at
each plant, and the fact that each plant can operate autonomously.
In view of these circumstances we are persuaded that the requested
unit limited to the Michele employees at Scranton is appropriate.'
Although the Independent expressed willingness to represent the two-
plant unit in the event the Board should find that unit appropriate,
we do not construe that as a request•.for certification in'separate plant
units. We shall dismiss the Employer's petition for the two-plant
unit.
• We find- that the following employees of the Employer -constitute
a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining, within the
meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act:
All operators employed,by the Employer at its plant at 210 North
Main Street in Scranton, Pennsylvania, including pressers and
trimmers, but excluding cutters, office clerical employees, the ma-
chinist, and 'all supervisory employees as defined' in the Act.
[The Board dismissed the petition in'Case No. 4-RM-290.]
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
7 See George Aftergood d Son d/b/a Cdiivogue Sportswear, 96 NLRB 228 ; Robe Marie
Reid, 103 NLRB 498.
Sealtest Southern Dairies Division ; National Dairy Products
Corporation 1 and Freight Drivers, Warehousemen , Helpers
Bakery Salesmen and Dairy Employees Local 390, an affiliate
of International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen and Helpers of America, Petitioner. Case No,
12-RC-3?9. October 10, 1958
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF, ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Herbert B. Mintz,
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 Act, the Board
has' delegated its powers in connection with this case,to ' a three-
member panel [Members Rodgers, Jenkins, and Fanning].
i The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing.
121 NLRB No. 161'. •