Newport News Children's Dress Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 14, 1950

89 N.L.R.B. 442 (N.L.R.B. 1950)

In the Matter of NEWPORT NEWS CHILDREN 'S DRESS COMPANY, EM-
PLOYER and INTERNATIONAL LADIES' . GARMENT WORKERS' UNION7
PETITIONER
Case No. 5-RC-573.-Decided April 14, 1950
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before Harold G.
Biermann, 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 Houston, Reynolds, and
Murdock].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. For reasons stated below, the Employer contended that the hold-
ing of a hearing in this case was illegal and therefore it refused to
present any evidence or adduce any testimony on the nature of its
business or on other questions. The hearing officer, over the objection
of the Employer, introduced the transcript of a hearing held 14 months
previously in Case No. 5-RC-235, to which the Employer was a party.
This transcript contained testimony concerning the relation of the
business of the Employer to commerce. At the hearing herein, the
Employer did not present any evidence to rebut the testimony adduced
by the Petitioner to the effect that the operations of the Employer con-
tinued substantially the same as they were at the time of the prior hear-
ing. Our commerce findings below, therefore, are based on the whole
record herein, including the transcript of the previous hearing.
The Employer has an office and plant at Newport News, Virginia,
where it is engaged in the manufacture of children's dresses, and
employs approximately 60 persons. The Employer works on a con-
tract basis, and does the sewing of the dresses only. It receives the
materials already cut from a concern in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania,
sews them, and returns them to Harrisburg to be finished. During
89 NLRB No. 58.
442
NEWPORT NEWS CHILDREN'S DRESS COMPANY 443
the last 6 months of 1948, the Employer received in excess of $10,000
for its work.
We find that the Employer is engaged in commerce within the mean-
ing of the National Labor Relations Act.
2. For its convenience in operation, the Petitioner establishes dis-
tricts on a geographical basis to perform certain organizational and
administrative functions. The Employer's business is within what the
Petitioner calls its Maryland-Virginia District. The Employer asserts
that this district is the real party in interest in this proceeding and
should have been the petitioner. It further contends that since the
alleged real party in interest is not in compliance with Section 9 (f),
(g), and (h) of the Act, the petition should be dismissed. It is this
contention on Which the Employer based its stand that the hearing
was illegally held and therefore refused to present evidence therein.
The Maryland-Virginia District does not enter into collective bargain-
ing agreements. Membership cards are made out to the Petitioner
directly, and the authorizations 1 designate, the Petitioner. Under
these circumstances we find that the Maryland-Virginia District is a
mere servicing arm of the Petitioner which does not come within the
meaning of a labor organization as defined in Section 2 (5) of the Act,
and consequently that its failure to comply separately with the provi-
sions of Section 9 (f), (g), and (h) of the Act does not affect the
rights of the Petitioner.2
We find that the Petitioner is a labor organization claiming to rep-.
resent 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) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.3
1 The Employer questions the adequacy of the showing of interest made by the Petitioner,
asserting that the authorization cards used to support the petition were the same ones
used in the earlier case involving these parties. We reaffirm our consistent holding that
the showing of interest is a matter for administrative determination and may not be
litigated at the hearing. Hoyden Chemical Corporation, 85 NLRB 1181 ; Hughes Aircraft
Company, 81 NLRB 867. Moreover, the record shows that the authorizations submitted by
the Petitioner were all signed within the 6-week period preceding the filing of the petition.
2 Rock Hill Printing & Finishing Company, 82 NLRB 932 ; F. Strauss and Son, Inc., 80
NLRB 26.
3 The Employer moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that charges of unfair labor
practices filed against it by the Petitioner are still pending, asserting that a free election
cannot be held in the face of the alleged slanderous accusations contained in those charges.
We do not believe that the rights of the Employer or freedom of choice of the employees
will he prejudiced by holding an election at this time. Since the Petitioner has waived
any right to object to an election held in the present proceedings on the basis of any acts
alleged as unfair labor practices in its charges, we deny the Employer's motion to dismiss
the petition. Modern Upholstered Chair Company, Inc., 84 NLRB 95 ; Wilson & Co., Inc.,
80 NLRB 1466.
444 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
4. We find that all employees of the Employer at Newport News,
Virginia, excluding office clerical employees,4 guards, and supervisors
within the meaning of the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the
purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b)
of the Act:
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the
purposes of collective bargaining with the Employer, an election by
secret ballot shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later than
30 days from the date of this Direction, under the direction and super-
vision of the Regional Director for the Region in which this case was
heard, and subject to Sections 203.61 and 203.62 of National Labor
Relations Board Rules and Regulations, among the employees in the
unit found appropriate in paragraph numbered 4, above, who were
employed during the payroll period immediately preceding the date
of this Direction of Election, including employees who did not work
during said payroll period because they were ill or on vacation or
temporarily laid off, but excluding, those employees who have since
quit or been discharged for cause and have not been rehired or rein-
stated prior to the date of the election, and also excluding employees
on strike who are not entitled to reinstatement, to determine whether
or not they desire to be represented, for purposes of collective bar-
gaining, by International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union.
4 We exclude office cerical employees in accordance with our customary practice . Western
Electric Company , Inc., 85 NLRB 227 ; Blae Star Airlines , Inc., 73 NLRB 663.