Reliance Manufacturing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 5, 1943

47 N.L.R.B. 451 (N.L.R.B. 1943)

In the Matter of RELIANCE MANUFACTURING COMPANY and UNITED
GARMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL No. 215 ,
Case No. R-4792.-Decided February 5,1943
Jurisdiction : garment manufacturing industry.
Investigation and Certification of Representatives : existence of question: re-
fusal to accord recognition without certification ; intervenor's objections to
usual eligibility date held without merit ; election necessary.
Unit Appropriate for Collective Bargaining : all production and maintenance
employees at one plant, including shipping clerks, but excluding supervisory
and clerical employees, janitor-watchmen, and irregular employees.
Mr. Paul Y. Davis, of Indianapolis, Ind., for the Company.
Mr. Joseph A. Padway, by Mr. Robert A. Wilson, of Washington,
D. C., and Miss Madge King, of Galesburg, Ill., for'the United.
Messrs. Leon M. Despres and -Harold Freed, of Chicago, Ill., and
Miss Mildred Stout, of Michigan City, Ind., for the Amalgamated.
_Mr. Robert Silagi, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE '
Upon a petition duly filed by United Garment Workers of America,
Local No. 215, A. F. of L., herein called the United, alleging that a
question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation
of employee§ of Reliance Manufacturing Company, Michigan City,
Indiana, herein called the Company, the National Labor Relations
Board provided for an appropriate hearing upon due notice before
Lester Asher, Trial Examiner. Said hearing was held at Michigan
City, Indiana, on January 25, 1943. The Company, the United, and
Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, C. I. 0., herein called
the Amalgamated, appeared, participated, and were afforded full op-
portunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to
introduce evidence bearing on the issues. The Trial Examiner's rul-
ings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby
affirmed. On February 1 and 5, 1943, the Amalgamated and the
United, respectively, filed briefs which the Board has, considered.
47 N. L. R. B., No. 64.
451
452 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Reliance Manufacturing Company, an Illinois corporation with its
principal office in Chicago, operates 16 plants for the manufacture of
clothing. These include a,plant at Michigan City, Indiana, herein
called the Michigan City plant, which is the only plant involved in
this proceeding. The Michigan City plant is primarily, engaged in
the manufacturer of underwear for men. During the year 1942, all' of
the materials used by the Company at this plant were purchased out-
side the State of Indiana and shipped from points outside the State
to the Michigan City plant. During the same period, over 85 percent
of the goods manufactured at the Michigan City plant, valued in excess
of $1,700,000, was shipped therefrom to, points outside the State of
Indiana. A large percentage of the production of the Michigan City-
plant is devoted to the manufacture of clothing for war use. '
. The, Company admits that it is engaged in interstate commerce
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
United Garment Workers of America, Local No. 215,' affiliated with
the American Federation of Labor, is a labor organization, admitting
to membership employees of the Company.
Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, affiliated with the
Congress of Industrial Organizations, is a labor organization, ad-
mitting to membership employees of the Company.
. III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
On July 18; •1941, ,the Company entered into a members-only con-
tract with the United. The contract provided that it should remain
in effect for 1 year, and was subsequently extended by supplementary
agreement to July 18, 1943.- In May 1942, the United requested the
Company to recognize it as the exclusive bargaining representative of
the,production and maintenance employees at the Michigan City plant.
The Company refused to recognize the United without certification by
the Board.
A statement' of the Regional Director, introduced into' evidence 'at
the hearing, indicates that the United represents a Substantial number
of employees in the unit hereinafter found appropriate.'
'The Regional Director reported that the United had submitted 358 authorization
cards, all oP which bore apparently genuine original signatures ; that 267 of these cards
RELIANCE MANUFACTURING COMPANY 453
We'find that a question affecting commerce 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 APPROPRIATE UNIT
The United seeks a unit composed of all production and maintenance
employees at the Michigan City plant, including shipping clerks, but
excluding office clerks, office help, supervisory employees, and janitor-
watchmen. There is agreement among the parties oh all classifications
except maintenance employees and certain irregular employees.
The United seeks to include and the Amalgamated to exclude the
maintenance men from the unit. The Amalgamated contends that
these employees, of which there are seven, should not be included in the
unit for the reason that they are too closely allied to the management.
Although the Amalgamated states that the maintenance employees are
not eligible to membership in that organization, similar maintenance
employees are covered by a contract between the Amalgamated and
another concern. The United accepts the maintenance men to mem-
bership. Of these seven maintenance employees, one is a piece-goods
man who takes care of all piece goods, checks in returns, and is re-
sponsible for the assortment of patterns; another is a maintenance man
who takes care of building repairs, painting, and electrical work; two
are belt boys who replace belts on sewing machines and do repair work
on the transmitters; one is a marker in the cutting room and marks
patterns in connection with piece goods; and two are sewing machine
mechanics who repair and maintain the sewing machines. The record
shows that none of these employees has any supervisory authority,
nor is there any evidence that their interests are so,close to the manage-
ment as to warrant their exclusion. ' Accordingly, we shall include
them in the unit.
The Company's pay roll lists four irregular employees? These em-
ployees are not steadily employed for reasons of poor health or because
their family d ties do not allow them sufficient time to work on a full-
time basis. Tie United and the Amalgamated seek their exclusion
on the ground of the sporadic nature of their work. While the Com-
pany does not agree to their exclusion, it states that it has no objection
thereto. The record shows that Kudynowski worked a total of 324
bore the names of persons listed on the Company 's pay roll of December 26, 1942,
which contained the names of 389 persons within the alleged appropriate - unit; and
that the cards Ni ere dated as follows : 1 in the year 1940, 152 in the year 1941, 57 In
the year 1942, and 57 undated
The Amalgamated declined to submit to either the Regional Director or to the Trial
Examiner any evidence of membership . The United and the Company , however , do not
object to the Amalgamated 's appearance on the ballot.
Julia Kudynowski , Clara Brown , Gladys Pomranke (also referred to as Gladys
Tompomranke ), and Clara Jarnutowski.,
454 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL- LABOR RELATIONS- BOARD
clock hours during 1942, earned $137.08, and last worked on July 27,
1942. Brown worked a total of 287 clock hours during 1942, earned
$122.40, and last worked'on December 12, 1942. Pomranke worked a
total of 960 clock hours during 1942, earned $532.92, and last worked
on July 11, 1942. Jarnutowski worked a total of 842 clock hours dur-
ing 1942, earned $458.13, and last worked on October 17, 1942. In view
of the intermittent nature of their work, we shall exclude the irregular
employees from the unit.
There is also disagreement as to whether or not another employee,
Violet Schaeffer, should be included in the unit. This employee was on
leave of absence at the time of the hearing. She last worked on
December 12, 1942, and has been off since that time because she is
unable to find anyone to take care of her children. She lives on a
rural route, 9 miles from Michigan City. She intends to return to
work in the near future. She worked 1,811 clock hours during 1942
and earned $901.41. The Amalgamated contends that Schaeffer should
not be eligible to vote, for the reason that she has no expectation of
returning to work. The 'Company and the United would include
Schaeffer as an eligible employee. Since she was a regular employee
during the year 1942 and expects soon to return to work we shall include
her in the appropriate unit.
We find that all production and maintenance employees of the Com-
pany, including shipping clerks, but excluding supervisory and clerical
employees, janitor-watchmen, and irregular employees, constitute a
unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
V. THE DETERMINATION OF' REPRESENTATIVES
The Amalgamated desires that the eligibility date be governed by the
pay roll current at the time of the hearing, on the ground that the
Company may hire many new employees prior to the date of the elec-
tion and attempt to influence them to vote for the United. While the
record indicates that the Company may make some further increases in
its staff in the near future, there is nothing in the record to lead us
to find that the Company will attempt unlawfully to influence their
choice of representatives in the election. Accordingly, we shall not
depart from our usual practice with respect to the eligibility date.
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 Di-
rection. -
RELIANCE MANUFACTURING COMPANY
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
455
By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National Labor
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 and Regulations-Series 2, as amended, it is hereby
DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation to ascertain representa-
tives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Reliance Manu-
facturing Company, Michigan City, Indiana, 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 Thirteenth Region, acting
in this matter as agent for the National Labor Relations Board, and
subject to Article III, Section 10, of said Rules and Regulations, among
the employees in the unit found appropriate in Section IV, above, who
were employed during the pay-roll period immediately preceding 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 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, to
determine whether they desire to be represented by United Garment
Workers of America, Local No. 215, affiliated with the American Fed-
eration of Labor, or by the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of Amer-
ica, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, for the
purposes of collective bargaining, or by neither.