Rose Marie Reid

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 12, 1953

103 N.L.R.B. 498 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

498 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
notice to the Regional Director within ten (10) days after the issu-
ance of this Decision and Direction of Elections."
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication in this
volume.]
John F. Kaenel and George Von Kaenel d/b/a Acme Corrugated Box Company and John
F. Kaenei Cooperage Company, 88 NLRB 96.
ROSE MARIE REID and TEx'rILE WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, CIO,
PETITIONER . Case No. 21-RC-2829. March 12, 1953
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 Arthur Hailey, hear-
ing 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 Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel [Members Houston, Styles, and Peterson].
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 organizations involved claim 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 Petitioner seeks to represent all employees at the Employer's
plant at 5200 West Century Boulevard, Los Angeles, California,
herein called the Century plant, and the Intervenor, International
Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, Local 266, seeks a unit confined to
certain production employees at the same plant. The Employer con-
tends that the only appropriate unit is one which includes all its
employees at the Century plant and, in addition, all the employees
of Swimwear, Inc., herein called Swimwear, some of whom work at
the Century plant 2 while others work at a plant at 1260 Sentous
Street in the same city, herein called the Sentous plant. There is
no history of collective bargaining for any of these employees.
The Employer was incorporated in 1946; Swimwear was incorpo-
rated in October 1951 and began operations in February 1952. Both
' The Employer 's motion to dismiss the petition , which the hearing officer referred to the
Board, is hereby denied for the reasons appearing in paragraph numbered 4.
' The record shows that while all employees at the Century plant are on the Employer's
payroll, the Employer is reimbursed by Swimwear in proportion to the work done for Swim-
wear 's account.
103 NLRB No. 68.
ROSE MARIE REID 499
plants manufacture swimsuits and "play wear." At the time of the
hearing, there were about 436 employees at the Century plant and 110
at the Sentous plant. The plants are 15 or 16 miles apart.
The 2 companies have the same officers, and 2 of these officers are
on the 3-member board of directors of each company. There is 1
office for the 2 companies located at the Century plant, and there is
common managerial personnel. Also, the production service depart-
ments, i. e., production control, quality control, standards and methods,
timekeeping, purchasing, and building and equipment, although for
the most part located at the Century plant ,3 serve both companies,
as do the patterns and sample-making and the shipping departments.
It appears, therefore, that a 2-plant unit would be feasible.
However, there are factors in the instant case which justify a finding
that a unit confined to employees at the Century plant is also appro-
priate. Thus, there has been no bargaining history, and no labor
organization seeks certification on a 2-plant basis. The 2 plants are
geographically separated, each has a separate payroll, and the Cen-
tury plant constitutes a distinct production unit. Although there are
occasional transfers of personnel from one plant to the other when
need arises 4 or in connection with the training of supervisors, the
entire production operation can be performed at the Century plant
alone. On these record facts, we find that a unit confined to the em-
ployees at the Century plant is appropriate.5
The Intervenor, however, would exclude from the Petitioner's pro-
posed unit the following categories employed at the Century plant:
Maintenance employees, machinists, drivers, the chauffeur, receiving
and stock employees, folding and box department employees, ship-
ping department employees, pattern and sample makers, and markers,
spreaders, and cutters in the cutting department. As the record shows
a sufficient community of interests between the Intervenor's requested
exclusions and other employees in the unit, we shall include all em-
ployees at the plant, in accord with the contentions of the Petitioner
and the Employer .6
Accordingly, we find that all employees of the Employer and Swim-
wear at the plant at 5200 West Century Boulevard, Los Angeles,
California, excluding office clerical, professional, sales, production
control, quality control, standards and methods, timekeeping, and
purchasing employees, and the designer, the first-aid girl, models,
3 A timekeeper, a machinist , and a maintenance man are employed at the Sentous plant.
There is some interchange of work between the plants to balance workloads , and certain
types of work must be done on special machines which are located only at the Century plant.
' The record adduces about 7 instances of transfers of employees to the Sentous plant
and 2 to the Century plant since Swimwear began operations.
5 Harms Hosiery Co., Inc., 91 NLRB 330; Perfection Garment Company, 91 NLRB 1421;
Calivogue Sportswear, 96 NLRB 228.
4 Cf Harms Hosiery Co ., Inc., supra
500 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
guards, section supervisors, line supervisors, production expediter,
head mechanic, construction department supervisor, head marker,
head cutter, folding and boxing supervisor, patterns and sample mak-
ing department supervisor, receiving and stock department super-
visor, building and equipment superintendent, shipping department
supervisor and assistant supervisor, and all other supervisors as de-
fined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of
collective bargaining.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
KARTARIK, INC. and DISTRICT LODGE 77, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION
OF MACHINISTS , A. F. OF L. Case No. 18-CA-406. March 13,
1953
Decision and Order
On January 27, 1953, Trial Examiner David London issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Inter-
mediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed
exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief.
The Board 1 has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the In-
termediate Report,2 the Respondent's exceptions and brief, and the
entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions,
and recommendations of the Trial Examiner.3
1 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act , the Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three -member panel [Members Houston, Styles,
and Peterson].
2 The Intermediate Report contains an inadvertency which does not affect the Trial
Examiner 's ultimate conclusions or our concurrence therein. Accordingly , we make the
following correction : District Lodge 77, International Association of Machinists , A. F. of L.,
has at all times since April 11, 1952 , rather than since April 1, 1952, been the exclusive
bargaining representative of the Respondent 's employees in the unit found appropriate
therein.
3 The Respondent has excepted to the Trial Examiner 's finding that "The record does not
disclose what relationship, if any, was maintained between Respondent and the Union since
[February 3, 1947, the date on which the Union was certified] to the period which gave
rise to the controversy with which we are concerned ," and has pointed out that the record
discloses facts which indicate that the Union ceased to represent the Respondent 's employees
on or about June 15, 1949 . It contends , therefore , in its brief , that the present proceeding
"must be treated similarly to an initial representation case and the background of relation-
ship between the parties is completely immaterial as it would effect [sic ] the right of the
complaining union to represent these employees ." While we hereby correct the Trial
Examiner 's statement to accord with the record , neither the Trial Examiner nor the Board
relied upon these background events in finding that on April 11, 1952, the Union repre-
sented a majority of the employees in the appropriate unit.
103 NLRB No. 64.