Richmond Hosiery Mills

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 12, 1938

8 N.L.R.B. 1073 (N.L.R.B. 1938)

In the Matter of RICHMOND HOSIERY MILLS, SPINNING PLANT and
TEXTILE WORKERS ORGANIZING COMMITTEE
Case No. R-959. , Decided September 12, 1938
Cotton Yarn Manufacturing Industry-Investigation of Representatives: con-
troversy concerning representation of employees: controversy concerning appro-
priate unit; definition of bargaining unit and certification of representatives by
Board desired by employer before entering into negotiations-Unfit Appropriate
-for Collective Bargaining: production and maintenance employees of the spin-
ning plant, including section men, but excluding office and clerical employees
and supervisors who have the power to hire or discharge; organization of busi-
ness ; established labor organizations in plant ; eligibility for membership in
only organization among employees in plant ; occupational differences ; inde-
pendence as_ to change in rates of pay ; employees with limited supervisory
duties included in-Election. Ordered-Petition dismissed; no union representa-
tive received majority vote at Board election.
Mr. Marion A. Prawell, for the Board.
Mr. Vance King, of Rossville, Ga., and Mr. Jac C. Chambliss, of
Chattanooga, Tenn., for the Company.
Mr. Herbert G. B. King, of Chattanooga, Tenn., for the Union.
Mr. Richard H. Meigs, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On March 30, 1938, Textile Workers Organizing Committee, herein
called the Union, filed with the Regional Director for the Tenth
Region (Atlanta, Georgia) a petition alleging that a question affect-
ing commerce had arisen concerning the representation of employees
of Richmond Hosiery Mills, Spinning Plant, Rossville, Georgia,
herein called the Company, and requesting an investigation and cer-
tification of representatives pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. On July 6,
1938, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board,
acting pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the Act and Article III, Section
3, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series
1, as amended, ordered an investigation and authorized the Regional
8 N. L. R. B., No. 134.
1073
1074 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Director to conduct it and to provide for an, appropriate hearing upon
due notice.
On July 15, 1938, the Regional Director issued a notice of hearing,
copies of which were duly served upon the Company and the Union.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held on- July 21, 1938, at Chatta-
nooga, Tennessee, before Walter.Wilbur, the Trial Examiner duly
designated by the Board. The Board, the Company, and the Union
were represented by counsel and participated in the hearing.' Full
opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and
to introduce evidence bearing on the issues was afforded all parties.
During the course of the hearing the Trial Examiner made several
rulings on motions and on objections to the admission of evidence.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds
that no prejudicial errors were committed. The rulings are hereby
affirmed.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Richmond Hosiery Mills, a Georgia corporation, is engaged in the
manufacture of hosiery and yarn at its Rossville, Georgia, plant.
The plant is composed of a hosiery mill which manufactures women's
and men's hosiery, and a spinning plant which converts cotton into
combed yarn. Approximately 900 people are employed in the hosiery
mill, and approximately 150 people are employed in the spinning
plant.
Cotton constitutes the principal raw material used by the Com-
pany in its spinning plant, substantially all of which is obtained
from Alabama and Mississippi. About 2,500 bales, valued at ap-
proximately $150,000, are used each year. In addition to cotton,
the Company uses each year the following :
75,000 pounds of silk, valued at $150,000, obtained from Japan
and Italy;
150,000 pounds of rayon, valued at $90,000, 90 per cent of
which is obtained outside the State of Georgia;
150,000 pounds of mercerized yarn, all of which is obtained
from the State of Tennessee;
Parts and supplies for use in the spinning plant, aggregating,
in value $15,000. These parts and supplies are secured from
all parts of the United States.
1 The Company was represented during the first part of the hearing by Mr. Vance King,
its,secretary and treasurer . During the course of the hearing counsel for the Union made
it apparent that the Union would seek certification by the Board on the basis of docu-
mentary evidence . At this point , in order better to protect the rights of the Company, the
hearing was adjourned in order to afford the Company an opportunity to obtain counsel.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 1075
The Company produces each year hosiery valued at approximately
$2,000,000, and approximately 1,000,000 pounds of yarn, valued at
approximately $250,000. Over 80 per cent of these products are
shipped to points outside the State of Georgia by rail, truck, and
mail carriers. -
The Company's spinning plant was originally established in 1905
or 1906 for the purpose of furnishing yarn for the manufacture
of hosiery, and for many years its entire production was used in
the Company's hosiery mill. Several years ago the demand for
hosiery changed from cotton to silk, and later to rayon. As a re-
sult of these changes, the Company has since shipped a large por-
tion of its cotton yarn to manufacturers of underwear and cotton
hosiery. A substantial amount of the yarn, however, is still retained
for use in its own hosiery mill.
H. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Textile Workers Organizing Committee is a labor organization
affiliated with the Committee for Industrial Organization, admitting
to its membership all production and maintenance employees in
the Company's spinning plant, excluding office and clerical em-
ployees and supervisors who have the power to hire or discharge.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTAT10N
Approximately 18 months prior to the hearing representatives of
the Union conferred with the management of the Company. At this
conference the Union asserted its claim to represent a majority of the
employees in the Company's,spinning plant and, although the record
does not disclose the exact nature of the conference, presumably
attempted to negotiate a contract covering these employees. Again,
approximately a month prior to the hearing, representatives of the
Union conferred with the vice president of the Company for the pur-
pose of obtaining recognition of the Union as the bargaining repre-
sentative of the Company's spinning plant employees. At this con-
ference the Company refused to recognize any representative of its,
workers without prior definition of the bargaining unit and certifica-
tion of the representative by the Board.
We find that a question has arisen concerning the representation
of employees of the Company.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION UPON
COMMERCE
We find that the question concerning representation which has
arisen, occurring in connection with the operations of the Company
described in Section I above, has a close, intimate, and substantial
117213-39-vol 8-69
1076 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and
tends to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce
and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The Union claims that all the employees of the Company's spin-
ning plant, excluding office and clerical workers and supervisors with
the power to hire and discharge, constitute a bargaining unit separate
and distinct from the employees in the hosiery mill. The Company
contends that the spinning plant is merely a department of the entire
Company, and for this reason spinning mill employees cannot prop-
erly be set apart from the hosiery mill employees as a separate unit
for the purposes of collective bargaining.
The record discloses the following similarities between the Com-
pany's spinning plant and hosiery mill: All the employees are hired
by the assistant treasurer; all are paid on a piece-rate basis; occa-
sionally employees are transferred from the spinning plant to the
hosiery mill; and, although rates of pay vary in the departments of
both plants, the Company tries to maintain the same minimum hourly
wage in both plants.
There are some patent and fundamental differences, however,
which strongly support the Union's request that the spinning plant
be considered separate and distinct from the hosiery mill. The spin-
ning plant is housed in a separate building. The manufacture of
hosiery is a knitting process, while the manufacture of cotton yarn
is primarily a spinning operation. The Company's secretary and
treasurer testified that the two plants are independent to the extent
that a change in the rates of pay in one would not affect the wages
in the other. In addition to these facts it appears that the employees
in the hosiery mill are eligible for membership in a labor organiza-
tion known as the American Federation of Hosiery Workers, while
those in the spinning plant are not so eligible. It further appears
that the Union is the only labor organization seeking to organize.
the spinning plant employees. In view of all the circumstances, it is
' apparent that the unit requested by the Union is appropriate and
we will so find.
The Union desires in the unit requested the inclusion of eight em-
ployees known as "section men" appearing on the Company's pay
roll. The Company maintains that the inclusion of these employees
would be inconsistent with the Union's definition of the unit re-
quested. It appears that section men act in a supervisory capacity
over small groups of employees. As previously stated, the sole
power to hire employees is vested in the assistant treasurer of the
Company. The power to discharge employees rests finally in the
discretion of superintendents, although the record shows that the
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 1077
section men customarily recommend discharges and such recommenda-
tions are usually complied with. We do not feel that the power to
recommend the discharge of employees is such a factor as to render
the Union 's position inconsistent , nor can we say that the desire of
the Union here to bargain for such employees whose supervisory
duties are limited is unreasonable.2
We find that all the production and maintenance employees, in-
cluding section men, in the Company's spinning plant, excluding office
and clerical employees and supervisors who have the power to hire
or discharge , constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collec-
tive bargaining and that said unit will insure to employees of the
Company the full benefit of their right to self -organization and to
collective bargaining and otherwise effectuate the policies of the Act.
VI. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
At the hearing the Union introduced in evidence approximately 144'
membership cards purporting to be signed by employees of the Com-
pany's spinning plant. Almost all of these cards were signed during
the months of March, April, and May, 1937. The Company produced
its pay roll for the period ending March 30, 1938, bearing the names
of 155 production and maintenance employees in the spinning plant.
It was stipulated by counsel for both the Union and the Company
that the pay roll of this date should be adopted for the purpose of
determining representation . Subsequent to the hearing , pursuant to
stipulation , the Company was permitted to introduce in evidence a
later pay roll for the week ending July 16, 1938 , for the purpose of
showing labor turn -over in the interim. This later pay roll , bearing
176 names, indicates an increase in employment of 21 employees over
the March 30 pay roll . We are of the opinion that the July 16 pay
roll is a more accurate reflection of employment conditions in the
Company's plant at the present time . We shall , therefore , adopt it
for the purpose of determining representation.
The Union was able to establish the genuineness of only 110 out of
a total of 144 signatures appearing on its membership cards. Of these
110 names, less than 88 appeared on the Company's pay roll for July
16, 1938. It is apparent , therefore , that the question of representation
must be determined by an election.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire
record in the proceeding, the Board makes, the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. A question affecting commerce has arisen concerning the repre-
sentation of employees of Richmond Hosiery Mills, Spinning Plant,
2Cf. Matter of Southe,n Chemical Cotton Company and Textile Workers Organizingi
Commtittee, 3 N. L R. B 869
1078 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
'Rossville, Georgia, within the meaning of Section 9 (c) and Section
2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act.
2. The production and maintenance employees of the Company at
its Rossville, Georgia, spinning plant, including section men, but
excluding office and clerical employees and supervisors who have the
power to hire or discharge, constitute a unit appropriate for the
purposes of collective bargaining, within the meaning of Section
9 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National
Labor Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, and pursuant to Article III, Section 8, of National Labor
Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 1, as amended, it is
hereby
DIRECTED that, as a part of the investigation ordered by the Board
to ascertain representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining
with Richmond Hosiery Mills, Spinning Plant, Rossville, Georgia,
an election by secret ballot shall be conducted within fifteen (15)
days from the date of this Direction, under the direction and super-
vision of the Regional Director for the Tenth Region, acting in this
matter as agent for the National Labor Relations Board, and subject
to Article III, Section 9, of said Rules and Regulations, among the
production and maintenance employees in the spinning plant of
Richmond Hosiery Mills, Rossville, Georgia, who were employed by
it during the pay-roll period ending July 16, 1938, including section
men, but excluding office and clerical employees, supervisors who
have the power to hire and discharge, and any employees who have
since quit or been discharged for cause, to determine whether or not
they desire to be represented by Textile Workers Organizing Com-
mittee, affiliated with the Committee for Industrial Organization,
for the purposes of collective bargaining.
MR. EDWIN S. SMITH took no part in the consideration of the
above Decision and Direction of Election.
[SAME TITLE]
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION
AND
ORDER
September 1'6, 1938
On September 12, 1938, the National Labor Relations Board,
herein called the Board, issued a Decision and.Direction of Election
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 1079
in the above-entitled case. The Direction of Election directed that
an election by secret ballot be conducted among the production and
maintenance employees in the spinning plant of Richmond Hosiery
Mills, Rossville, Georgia, herein called the Company, who were em-
ployed by it during the pay-roll period ending July 16, 1938, in-
cluding section men, but excluding office and clerical employees,
supervisors who have the power to hire and discharge, and any em-
ployees who have since quit or been discharged for cause, to deter-
mine whether or not they desire to be represented by Textile
Workers Organizing Committee, herein called the Union, affiliated
with the Comnttee for Industrial Organization, for the purposes of
collective bargaining.
On September 22, 1938, the Union filed with the Board in Wash-
ington, D. C., exceptions to said Decision and Direction of Election,
requesting that the Board reconsider its Findings of Fact and Con-
clusions of Law, and amend its Decision by certifying the Union
as the sole collective bargaining representative for the employees
of the Company, or, in the alternative, if the Board fails to amend
its Decision, that the Union be perihitted to withdraw its petition
requesting an investigation and certification of representatives of
the production and maintenance employees of Richmond Hosiery
Mills, Spinning Plant. The Board has reviewed the Union's excep-
tions and finds them without merit. We shall accordingly dismiss
the petition requesting an investigation and certification of represent-
atives of the production and maintenance employees of Richmond
Hosiery Mills, Spinning Plant.
ORDER
By virtue of Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act,
49 Stat. 449, and pursuant to Article III, Section 8, of National
Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 1, as amended,
it is ordered that the petition for investigation and certification of
representatives of the employees of Richmond Hosiery Mills, Spin-
ning Plant, filed by Textile Workers Organizing Committee on
March 30, 1938, be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
Mit. DONALD WAKEFIELD SMITH took no part in the consideration
of the above Supplemental Decision and Order.
8 N. L. R . B., No. 134a.