Sonic Knitting Industries, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 11, 1977

228 N.L.R.B. 1319 (N.L.R.B. 1977)

SONIC KNITTING INDUSTRIES 1319
Sonic Knitting Industries , Inc., Employer -Petitioner,
and International Ladies' Garment Workers'
Union , Locals 600-601 , AFL-CIO. Case 24-RM-
205
April 11, 1977
DECISION ON REVIEW AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS
PENELLO AND WALTHER
On July 15, 1976, the Regional Director for Region
24 issued a Decision and Direction of Election in the
above-entitled proceeding in which he found appro-
priate a unit composed exclusively of production and
maintenance employees employed by the Employer
at its fabric printing facility in Hato Rey, Puerto
Rico. Thereafter, in accordance with Section 102.67
of the National Labor Relations Board Rules and
Regulations, Series 8, as amended, International
Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, Locals 600-601,
AFL-CIO (herein called the Union), filed a timely
request for review of the Regional Director's Deci-
sion on the grounds that, inter alia, the facts raise
novel questions of law and policy, the Regional
Director made factual findings which are clearly
erroneous, and in making these findings he departed
from officially reported precedent.
On August 31, 1976, the National Labor Relations
Board, by telegraphic order, granted the request for
review and stayed the election pending the decision
on review.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the entire record in this
case and makes the following findings:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the Act and it will effectuate the
purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
2. The labor organization involved claims to
represent certain employees of the Employer.
3. The Petitioner, Sonic Knitting Industries, Inc.
(herein also called the Employer), is a Puerto Rico
corporation engaged in textile knitting and is a
wholly owned subsidiary of Caribbean Leisure Wear,
Inc. Sometime in 1972 the Employer voluntarily
recognized the Union, and subsequently the parties
entered into a collective-bargaining agreement ex-
tending from August 28, 1972, to August 27, 1975,
covering "those persons employed in any connection
with any and all operations in the manufacture of
knitted goods produced in the Employer shops
located in Puerto Rico." At the time the contract was
negotiated, the Employer had only one facility
located at Hato Rey, Puerto Rico, where it employed
some 21 knitters and printers.
In November 1974 the Employer notified the
Union that it intended to move its knitting opera-
tions to Morovis, Puerto Rico, some 45 miles from
the Hato Rey facility, but that the printing operation
would remain in Hato Rey. Thereafter, the Employer
bargained with the Union and agreed to provide
moving expenses or severance pay to the employees
affected by the relocation of the knitting operation,
and on December 4, 1974, executed an agreement
with the Union which provided that "the current
collective-bargaining agreement between the Compa-
ny and the Union will be applicable to the Morovis
(Sonic) employees as well as to the workers who
remain at the present premises at Tio Piedras [Hato
Rey], Puerto Rico." Only three employees elected to
move to Morovis, two of whom were promoted to
supervisory positions. Six employees continued to
work at Hato Rey, and the remainder chose the
severance pay option. Ultimately, about 40 knitters
were hired at Morovis.
In early February 1975, 13 of the 14 employees
then employed at Morovis signed authorization cards
for the Union. About the same time, several of the
employees at Hato Rey, who had become dissatisfied
with the Union, filed a petition for a deauthorization
election at the Hato Rey facility. Following an
informal preelection conference at which the Union
alleged that a combined unit of the two plants was
appropriate, the petition was amended to include the
Morovis employees. Thereafter, the Employer gave
several Hato Rey employees time off with pay to
solicit signatures for the deauthorization petition
from the Morovis employees.
The deauthorization election was conducted on
March 20, 1975, and a majority of the employees at
both locations voted to rescind the Union's authority
to negotiate a union-security provision. Thereafter,
the Union filed a grievance alleging that the
Employer's preelection conduct violated a contract
clause prohibiting antiumon discrimination and,
based on the same conduct, filed objections to the
election and unfair labor practice charges in Case
24-CA-3628.' An arbitrator found the Employer had
violated the contractual requirement that "Neither
the Employer nor any of its agents shall directly or
indirectly discourage membership in the Union," and
ordered it to cease and desist from such conduct, to
post a notice to that effect, and to make certain
monetary payments to the Union. The Regional
Director dismissed the petition on grounds that the
I The charge also alleged other misconduct not relevant here
228 NLRB No. 144
1320 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
signatures thereon had been obtained with the
assistance of the Employer and also dismissed the
charge in Case 24-CA-3628 under Spielberg Manu-
facturing Company, 112 NLRB 1080 (1955).2
On August 28, 1975 (the day after the contract
expired), the Union filed charges in Case 24-CA-
3640, alleging that the Employer violated Section
8(a)(5) of the Act by: (1) refusing to honor the
Union's request to discharge certain Morovis em-
ployees under the existing union-security clause; (2)
refusing to meet with the Union for the purpose of
negotiating a new collective-bargaining agreement;
and (3) failing to make payments into the trust funds
established by the expired contract during its term.
The Union also, on some later date, filed charges in
Case 24-CA-3702 alleging that the Employer refused
to bargain with the Union regarding the terms and
conditions of employment of the Morovis employees.
The Regional Director dismissed both charges on the
grounds that, inter alia, Morovis was a new and
separate unit, the Union had never attained majority
status at Morovis, and such status could not be
presumed from the contract or the arbitration award.
The Union's appeals to the General Counsel were
denied.
On September 17, 1975, the Employer filed a
petition in Case 24-RM-201 seeking an election in a
unit of production and maintenance employees
"employed by the Employer in Puerto Rico" but,
following the dismissal of the unfair labor practice
charges discussed above, withdrew that petition and
filed the instant petition for an election in a unit
composed of all production and maintenance em-
ployees at Hato Rey, excluding office clerical
employees, watchmen, designers, executives, supervi-
sors, foremen and assistant foremen, professional,
administrative, and executive personnel, guards and
supervisors.
7 The Union did not appeal the disnussal of this charge.
3 Sec 10261(b) of the National Labor Relations Board Rules and
Regulations , Series 8, as amended
4 The A S Abell Company, 224 NLRB 425, fn 6 (1976), Woolwich, Inc,
185 NLRB 783 (1970), Bowman Building Products Division and Allegheny
Strapping Division of Cyclops Corporation, 170 NLRB 312 (1968), Amperex
Electronic Corporation, 109 NLRB 353 (1954)
5 Inasmuch as we dismiss the petition on these narrow grounds, we find
it unnecessary in this proceeding to determine whether either a unit limited
to the Hato Rey facility or a unit encompassing both the Morovis and Hato
Rey plants would be appropriate for the purpose of collective bargaining
We further find it unnecessary to, and consequently do not, pass upon either
Under Section 9(c)(1)(B) of the Act and the
Regulations implementing that section,3 a question
concerning representation is established in the case
of an employer petition only by an affirmative claim
of a labor organization that it represents a majority
of the employees in the unit claimed to be appropri-
ate. Accordingly, the Board has often found that no
question concerning representation exists where an
employer petition for certification is narrower than
the unit sought by a labor organization.4
There is no evidence that, following the Employer's
announced intent to move its knitting operation to
Morovis, the Union sought, or claimed, to represent
the employees at the Hato Rey facility in a separate
unit. To the contrary, the Union consistently and
repeatedly sought recognition as the representative
for the employees at both locations. Thus, the Union
bargained with the Employer about and obtained an
extension of the existing collective-bargaining agree-
ment to the Morovis employees, successfully argued
that the petition in Case 24-UD-156 be amended to
include employees at both locations, requested the
Employer to discharge certain Morovis employees
under the contract's union-security clause, and
requested bargaining on a new contract apparently
covering employees at both locations. Further, when
the Employer refused to comply with these requests
the Union filed unfair labor practice charges against
the Employer, reasserting the appropriateness of the
two-location unit. Under these circumstances, where
the Union has made no demand for recognition in
the petitioned-for unit, we find that no question
concerning representation has been raised within the
meaning of Sections 9(c)(1) and 2(6) and (7) of the
Act. Accordingly, we shall dismiss the petition.5
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the petition in Case 24-
RM-205 be, and it hereby it, dismissed.
the Employer's contention that the disposition of Cases 24-CA-3640 and
24-CA-3702 is controlling herein, or the Union 's contention that the
Employer's failure to comply with the arbitration award, the basis for the
Regional Director's dismissal of the charges in Case 24-CA-3628, should
bar the conducting of an election . Finally, we do not pass on such issues as
whether the Employer has recognized the Union as exclusive representative
for a bargaining unit comprised of employees at both plants or whether,
assuming arguendo that the Union has been so recognized , the Employer has
demonstrated by objective considerations that it has some reasonable
grounds for believing that the Union has lost its majority status See, e.g,
United States Gypsum Company, 157 NLRB 652 (1966).