Perfection Garment Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 1, 1950

91 N.L.R.B. 1421 (N.L.R.B. 1950)

In the Matter of PERFECTION GARMENT COMPANY, EMPLOYER and IN-
TERNATIONAL LADIES' GARMENT WORKERS' UNION, AFL, PETITIONER
Case No. 5-RC-656.-Decided November 1, 1950
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 Joseph Butler, hearing officer.
The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from preju-
dicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection to this case to a three-member
panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Reynolds and Murdock].
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 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 Employer is engaged in manufacturing dresses at its three
plants located at Martinsburg, Keyser, and Ranson, West Virginia.
The Petitioner seeks a unit comprising all production and maintenance
employees together with the inclusions and exclusions as set forth by
the Board's previous decision at the Employer's Martinsburg, West
Virginia, plant alone.'
The Employer does not oppose the composition of the unit, but
rather takes issue with respect to its scope. It contends that only
the multiplant unit comprising all its plants, in accordance with the
Board's previous unit finding,2 is appropriate for the purposes of col-
1 72 NLRB 210 , wherein the Board found appropriate a production and maintenance unit
on a multiplant basis for the Martinsburg and Charles Town ( Ranson ) plants , including
shipping department employees , watchmen , firemen, truck drivers , instructors , and learners,
but excluding office clerical employees , foremen, and all other supervisory employees as
defined in the Act.
2 In the previous case, the parties agreed that a multiplant unit was appropriate and
the Board so found. However , during the election that subsequently followed the Union
lost and was therefore not certified as the bargaining representative . There is therefore
no prior history of collective bargaining with respect to the employees of the Employer.
91 NLRB No. 218.
1421
1422 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
lective bargaining, and that the single-plant unit sought herein is
inappropriate.
The Employer is engaged in the contract manufacture of dresses for
which other companies supply the materials. All of the materials go
directly to the Martinsburg plant. Most of the materials are cut;.
some are processed at Martinsburg and some at the other two plants.
At the Martinsburg plant, the Company makes the patterns, marks the
cloth, cuts, sews, presses, boxes, and ships the finished product. Ex-
cept for cutting, marking, and shipping, the same operations are con-
ducted at both the Ranson and the Keyser plants. The finished prod-
ucts of the Ranson and Keyser plants are returned to the Martinsburg
plant for'outside shipment to the Employer's customers. All of the
plants are under the over-all supervision of the vice president in
charge of production; however, each plant is under the separate im-
mediate supervision of the plant manager. Although all of the Em-
ployer's clerical employees except time checkers are located at the
Martinsburg plant, and all payrolls are drawn up there, there is vir-
tually no interchange between employees of any of the plants, and
seniority is on a plant-wide rather than a.multiplant basis.
While we note that certain factors present herein militate in favor
of a multiplant unit, they are not so compelling as to require our
holding that no other unit is appropriate. Other factors here justify
a unit confined to the Martinsburg plant as requested by the Peti-
tioner. Thus, the Employer's entire operation is in part, and can be
totally, performed at the Martinsburg plant. The employees at the
Martinsburg plant work under separate immediate supervision and
enjoy the same conditions of employment as other employees in the
Employer's operation. Further, the three plants are geographically
separated 3 and there is no transfer of personnel. In view of the
foregoing factors, including the functional independence, the lack of
interchange among employees, the fact that seniority is on a plant-
wide rather than operation-wide basis, the geographic separation, and
the distinct community of interests possessed by the employees en-
gaged therein, we are persuaded that a unit, of the employees at the
Employer's Martinsburg, West Virginia, plant is appropriate.4
We find that all production and maintenance employees of the
Employer at its plant in Martinsburg, West Virginia, including ship-
ping department employees, firemen, truck drivers, instructors, and
3 The Martinsburg plant is some 90 miles away from the Keyser plant, and some 14
miles away from. the Ranson plant.
4 See Harms Hosiery Co ., Inc., 91 , NLRB 330; Southland Manufacturing Company, 91
NLRB No . 38; Tclechron , Inc., 90 NLRB 931.
PERFECTION GARMENT COMPANY 1423
learners, but excluding watchmen,5 office clerical employees, foremen,
and all other supervisors as defined in the Act constitute a unit ap-
propriate for purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning
of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
5 The record does not reflect whether watchmen possess or perform guard duties which
normally would exclude them from the over-all unit. If they do , we shall exclude them,
if they do not, we shall include them in the unit.