Moss-Amber Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 31, 1956

116 N.L.R.B. 1998 (N.L.R.B. 1956)

1998 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Moss-Amber Corporation ' and Los Angeles Joint Board, Amal-
gamated Clothing Workers of America , AFL-CIO, Petitioner.
Case No. ?J-RC-4553. December 31, 1956
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 Irving Helbling, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.2
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
Act.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain
employees 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 Petitioner seeks a unit consisting of spreaders and cutters at
the Employer's plant at San Fernando, California, excluding all other
production employees, shipping and office employees, maintenance
employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act. The Employer as-
serts that the requested unit is inappropriate and contends that the
appropriate unit should include, in addition to the employees sought
by the Petitioner, employees engaged in designing, spreading, cutting,
and patternmaking at the Employer's other plant at Los Angeles,
California. The parties further disagree as to the unit placement of
certain categories at the San Fernando plant, which are discussed
below.
The Employer, under the overall direction of its president and its
vice president, is engaged in the manufacture Fund sale of sport shirts.
Its San Fernando and Los Angeles plants are about 25 miles apart.
At the former plant, which consists of a single large room and a, par-
titioned-off space used as an office, the Employer is engaged primarily
in production activities. The Employer's vice president makes his
headquarters at this plant, and supervises its approximately 100 em-
ployees. The employees include 1 full-time cutter,' 2 spreaders, ap-
I The Employer 's name appears herein as amended at the hearing
2 The hearing officer properly rejected an offer of proof made by the Emp loyer with
respect to the voting eligibility of a cutter and spreader An unfair labor practice charge
alleging discharge because of union activities respecting this person has been filed with
the Board , and it is the Board's customary practice to exclude from representation hear-
ings all evidence relating to unfair labor practices. Dichetlo, Incorporated , 107 NLRB
1642, footnote 2; ef. Desilu Productions , Inc., 106 NLRB 179, Columbia Pictuu es Corpo-
ration, et at., 94 NLRB 466.
s This cutter , who lives near Los Angeles , in addition to his full -time cutting 'drives the
Employer 's truck and makes deliveries between the plants on his way to and from work.
116 NLRB No. 288.
MOSS-AMBER CORPORATION 1999,
proximately 75 sewing machine operators and a forelady, 5 or 6 press-
ers, about 5 trimmers, 2 or 3 inspectors, 5 bundle girls, a machinist, and
1 or 2 janitors. At its Los Angeles plant, the Employer (1) maintains
its principal office and its showroom; (2) designs, alters, and repairs
its products, and manufactures certain items, mostly samples; and
(3) sells, folds, presses,' boxes, and ships its products, including those-
made in San Fernando. The Employer keeps its books and its pay-
roll records at its Los Angeles office, and its president has his head-
quarters at this plant. The approximately 25 employees include 5
office clericals, 6 or 7 folders, 3 pressers, 3 or 4 boxers, 3 or 4 shippers,
a sewer, and 2 employees engaged in designing, spreading, cutting, and
patternmaking. The Employer's vice president supervises the 2 latter
employees in addition to the 100 employees at the San Fernando plant.
All the above employees perform the usual duties of their classifica-
tions. So far as the record discloses, there is no employee interchange
between the two plants, and there is no history of collective bargaining
at either.
Upon the entire record herein, and particularly in view of the,
geographical separation of the two plants, their different functions,
the lack of employee interchange and bargaining history, and the
fact that no labor organization currently seeks to represent employees
at both plants, we find that a unit of employees limited to the San
Fernando plant is appropriate.
It is clear from the record that the cutter and the spreaders at the
San Fernando plant are skilled employees, and that their jobs are, to,
some extent. complementary.' The Board has found that spreaders,
and cutters in the garment industry, such as those involved herein,
constitute a homogeneous group of skilled employees, with interests
separate and apart from other employees.6 We therefore find that
the spreader and the cutters at the San Fernando plant constitute
an appropriate bargaining unit.
There remains for consideration the unit placement of the disputed
categories at the San Fernando plant.
Bundle girls: The Employer would include, and the Petitioner
would exclude, the bundle girls. The Board has found that, although-
bundle girls handle work done by spreaders and cutters, they clearly
do not have the skills required of such employees, and that they do^
not have a community of interests with spreaders and cutters which
would require their inclusion in a unit of these employees.' We there-
fore exclude bundle girls from the unit.
4 This is "finish -pressing ," in contrast to the "under -pressing" done at the San Fernando
plant.
e Until about September , each of these employees did both spreading and cutting
"Little Champ Manufacturers , Inc, 104 NLRB 985, 990, Rothschild -Kaufman Co,.
Inc , 98 NLRB 353.
Little Chomp Manufacturers , Inc, supi a.
2000 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The patternmaker-cutter: The Employer would include the pattern-
maker-cutter . The Petitioner would exclude him as a supervisor.
He spends about 75 percent of his time in making patterns and mark-
ers. He also does spreading and cutting . He has hired at least one
employee and appears to give orders and directions to other spreaders
and cutters . In these circumstances , we find that the patternmaker-
cutter is a supervisor as defined in the Act and exclude him from the
unit.
Upon the entire record in this case , we find that the following em-
ployees of the Employer at its plant at San Fernando , California,
constitute an appropriate unit within the meaning of Section 9 (b)
of the Act : All spreaders and cutters , excluding all other production
employees , shipping and office employees , maintenance employees,
bundle girls , the patternmaker-cutter, and all other supervisors as
defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
O