Roanoke Mills Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 13, 1948

76 N.L.R.B. 195 (N.L.R.B. 1948)

In the Matter of ROANOKE MILLS COMPANY, EMPLOYER and TEXTILE
WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER
Case No. 5W-R-9. Decided February 13, 1948
Mr. D. E. Hudgins, of Greensboro, N. C., for the Employer.
Mr. R. C. Thomas, of Wilson, N. C., and Mr. Toby E. Mendes, of
Roanoke Rapids, N. C., for the Petitioner.
Mr. W. L. Crew, of Roanoke Rapids, N. C., for District 50.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at Roanoke
Rapids, North Carolina, on January 10, 1947, before Harold M.
Weston, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the
hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations
Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE LUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
Roanoke Mills Company, a North Carolina corporation, is engaged
in the business of manufacturing cotton textiles at its two plants at
Roanoke Rapids, North Carolina. During 1946, the Employer pur-
chased for use at these plants raw materials valued at more than $500,-
000, of which approximately 85 percent represents shipments from
outside the. State of North Carolina. During the same period, the
employer manufactured products valued at more than $1,000,000, of
which approximately 90 percent represents shipments to points outside
the State.
The Employer admits and we find that it is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The Petitioner is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress of
Industrial Organizations, claiming to represent employees of the Em-
ployer.
76 N. L. R. B., No. 28.
195
781902-48-vol. 76-14
196 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
District 50, United Mine Workers of America, is an unaffiliated labor
organization claiming to represent employees of the Employer.'
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Employer refuses to recognize the Petitioner as the exclusive
bargaining representative of employees of the Employer until the
Petitioner has been certified by the Board in an appropriate unit.
We find that a question affecting commerce exists concerning the
representation of employees of the Employer, within the meaning of
Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The Petitioner requests a unit of production and maintenance em-
ployees at the Employer's Mill No. 1, including yardmen and watch-
men, but excluding office and clerical employees, second hands and
supervisors. The Employer contends that 'production and mainte-
nance employees at Mill No. 2 and plant clerical employees and second
hands should also be included in the unit, but otherwise does not object
to its composition.
The Employer's two mills are approximately 1 mile apart. Most
of the land situated between the mills is owned by the Employer and is
used as a mill village, where the employees of both plants reside.
There is a vice president and general manager who is responsible for
the operations of both mills. For both mills the Employer has a single
labor relations policy, a single executive office, a single personnel and
employment office, and a single purchasing department. Both mills
use the same type of machinery and manufacturing processes, require
the same type of employee skills, and have similar working conditions.
From a manufacturing standpoint, however, each mill is a self -con-
tained enterprise.' Mill No. 1, employing approximately 950 em-
ployees, manufactures flannels, whereas-Mill'No. 2, employing approxi-
mately 1,050 employees, produces fancy tickings and decorative fab-
rics. There is a separate plant superintendent for each mill. ° "Sihce'
1936, there has been little interchange of employees between the mills.
In view of the self-sufficiency of each plant from a- manufacturing
standpoint, the Employer's previous consent to an election involving
1 At the hearing, District 50 moved to intervene but later withdre* this motion . It then
moved that its name be placed on the ballot in any election that might be ordered. The
hearing officer referred this motion to the Board . Inasmuch as District 50 has not complied
with Section 9 (f), (g), and ( h) of the Act, as amended , we shall not place its name on the
ballot in the election hereinafter directed See Matter of Rite-Form Corset, Co., 75
N. L. R. B. 174.
ROANOKE MILLS COMPANY 197
.employees of Mill No. 2,2 and the lack of substantial interchange be-
tween the two mills, we are of the opinion that a unit limited to the
employees of Mill No. 1 is appropriate for purposes of collective
bargaining.
Second hands.-There are approximately 950 production and main-
tenance employees in Mill No. 1. The only supervisors of these em-
ployees, the Employer asserts, are 1 plant superintendent, 2 assistant
superintendents, and 8 overseers. However, assisting these overseers
are second hands. The second hands inspect the work of the produc-
tion employees, check on their attendance and tardiness, report rule in-
fractions, train new employees, and recommend raises in pay for em-
ployees under their supervision. The plant operates on 3 shifts and
during the third shift, from midnight to 7 a. in., second hands are in
charge. Although the Employer contends to the contrary, we are sat-
isfied that the second hands are an indispensable part of the Employ-
er's supervisory hierarchy. Accordingly, we shall exclude them.3
Plant clerks.-The Petitioner would exclude and the Employer in-
clude this group of employees, composed of timekeepers, pay-roll
clerks, assistant pay-roll clerks, supply room clerks, supply room help-
ers, and cloth room clerks. These employees work in the plant under
the supervision of the plant superintendent and assistant superintend-
ents and are paid on an hourly basis, as are the production and main-
tenance employees. As plant clerks, we shall include them in the unit,4
as requested by the Employer.
Watchmen.-The parties agreed to include watchmen. However,
in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, we assume that the
watchmen perform the normal duties of such employment and, there-
fore, enforce against employees and other persons rules to protect the
property of the Employer or to protect the safety of persons on the
Employer's premises, within the meaning of Section 9 (b) (3) of the
Act, as amended. Accordingly, we must exclude watchmen from the
unit .5
We find that all production and maintenance employees at the Em-
ployer's Mill No. 1, including yardmen and plant clerical employees,
but excluding all office clerical employees, watchmen, second hands,
2 Matter of Roanoke Mills Company, Case No. 5-R-1089 , wherein an election was lost in
September 1942, by United Textile Workers of America , AFL, the only labor organization
involved.
5 See Matter of Whittier Mills Company and Silver Lake Company , 66 N L . it. B. 611;
Matter of Denison Cotton Mill Company, 63 N. L. R. B. 929; Matter of Piedmont Cotton
Mills, 60 N. L. it. B. 200
* Matter of Northwest Engineering Company, 73 N. L R. B. 40; Matter of New Jersey
Worsted Mills, 63 N. L R. B. 455 ; Matter of Vulcan Mold and Iron Company , 62 N. L. R. B.
1219; Matter of Goodman Manufacturing Company, 58 N. L. R. B. 531.
0 See Matter of C. V. Hill d Company, Inc., 76 N. L. it . B. 158.
198 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and all other supervisors , constitute a unit appropriate for the pur-
poses 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 Roanoke Mills Company, Ro-
anoke Rapids, North Carolina, an election by secret-ballot shall be con-
ducted as early as possible, but not later than thirty (30) days from the
date of this Direction, under the direction and supervision of the Re-
gional Director for the Fifth Region, and subject to Sections 203.61
and 203.62 of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regula-
tions-Series 5, 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, but excluding those employees
who have since quite or been discharged for cause and have not been
rehired or reinstated prior to the date of the election, to determine
whether or not they desire to be represented by Textile Workers Union
of America, CIO, for the purposes of collective bargaining.
MEMBER GRAY took no part in the consideration of the above De-
cision and Direction of Election.