Sussex Hats, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 30, 1947

73 N.L.R.B. 737 (N.L.R.B. 1947)

In the Matter Of SUSSEx HATS, INC., EMPLOYER and UNITED HATTERS,
CAP AND MILLINERY WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, A. F. OF L.,
PETITIONER
Case No. 1-R-3565.Decided April 30, 1947
Mr. Edward B. Cooley, of Springfield, Mass., and Mr. William Wolf,
of Holyoke, Mass., for the Employer.
Mr. Frank Reel, of Boston, Mass., and Mr. Edward Erwin, of Hol-
yoke, Mass., for the Petitioner.
Miss Eleanor Schwartzbach, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
Upon a petition duly filed, the National Labor Relations Board
on February 28, 1947, conducted a prehearing election among em-
ployees of the Employer in the alleged appropriate unit, to determine
whether or not they desired to be represented by the Petitioner for the
purposes of collective bargaining.
At the close of the election, a Tally of Ballots was furnished the
parties. The Tally shows that there were approximately 54 eligible
voters and that 51 ballots were cast, of which 26 were for the Peti-
tioner, 22 were against, and 3 were challenged.
Thereafter, hearing in the case was held at Boston, Massachusetts,
on March 17, 1947, before Robert E. Greene, hearing officer. The hear-
ing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial
error and are hereby affirmed.
The Employer's request for oral argument is hereby denied inas-
much as the record and briefs, in our opinion, adequately present the
issues and positions of the parties.
Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations
Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
Sussex Hats, Inc., a Massachusetts corporation, is engaged in the
manufacture of ladies' hats at Holyoke, Massachusetts. In addition
73 N. L. R. B., No. 141.
737
738 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to its plant in Holyoke, the Employer maintains a sales office in New
York City. During the last 6 months of 1946, the Employer purchased
raw materials, consisting principally of felt bodies and straw materials,
amounting in value to more than $70,000, approximately 50 percent
of which was shipped to its plant from points outside the Common-
wealth of Massachusetts. During the same period the Employer sold
finished products valued in excess of $150,000, 95 percent of which was
shipped to points outside the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
The Employer admits and we find that it is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Petitioner is a labor organization affiliated with the American
Federation of Labor, 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 Peti-
tioner has been certified by the Board in an appropriate unit.
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning
the representation of employees of the Employer, within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. TILE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The parties agree generally that the appropriate unit should consist
of all production employees, including packers and shippers, but
excluding executives, office employees, maintenance employees, and all
supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge,
discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or
effectively recommend such action. There is disagreement, however,
as to learners 1 and part-time student employees. The Petitioner
would include, and the Employer would exclude, both categories.
Learners : There were approximately 6 learners at the Employer's
plant at the time of the election. Learners, or newly hired inexperi-
enced employees, are hired with the expectation that they will become
regular employees if their work proves satisfactory. They become
regular employees as soon as they have learned the work, which may be
within 1 week. They are released if at the end of 60 days their work
is not satisfactory. During their learning period they work the same
hours, in the same surroundings, and under the same supervision and
conditions as regular employees. The principal distinguishing
1 In its brief , the Employer alludes to learners as "probationary " employees.
SUSSEX HATS, INC 739
feature between learners and regular employees is in their skill.2
Both learners and regular employees, immediately upon their em-
ployment, are covered under a benefit plan supported entirely by the
Employer.
Employees with more than 1 year's service receive vacations with
pay. 'Computations as to this 1-year period are reckoned from the
time of the employee's original hiring, whether in a learner's status or
in a regular status. In view of the foregoing, we believe that these
learners have a substantial interest in the selection of a bargaining
representative, and shall include them in the unit.3
Part-time student employees: The student employees 4 in dispute
are high school students who work full time for the Employer during
the summer and other vacation periods, and after school hours during
the school year. They work under identical working conditions and
receive substantially the same rate of pay as regular full-time em-
ployees. Inasmuch as they are regular part-time employees, we shall
include them in the unit.'
We find that all production employees, including packers, shippers,
learners, and part-time students, but excluding executives, office
employees, maintenance employees, and all supervisory employees
with authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise
effect changes in the status of employees, or effectively recommend
such action, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collec-
tive bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
As noted above, an election was held in this proceeding prior to the
hearing on the issues. Of 51 ballots cast 26 were for the Petitioner, 22
were against the Petitioner, and 3 ballots were challenged. Since the
counting of the 3 challenged ballots would not affect the result of the
election, the Regional Director did not investigate the eligibility
of the challenged voters.
At the hearing, the Employer questioned the validity of the election
on the ground that Maria Fila, whose name did not appear on the pay
roll governing eligibility, was not permitted to cast a. vote -therein.
Fila worked for the Employer from about October 21, 1946, until
January 27, 1947. About that time she had an argument with her
' The wage scale for learners is somewhat lower than that of regular employees
' Matter of Perfection Garment Company , 72 N L R B 210 , Matter of Saginaw Cabinet
Company, 72 N. L. R B. 951 ; Matter of Crossett Chemical Company , 71 N L. R B 433;
Matter of Paragon Rubber Corporation , 72 N L. R. B. 170
4 Marilyn Hendricks and Charles Mayo.
5 Matter of Imperial Brass Manufacturing Company, 72 N. L. R B. 513 ; Matter of
Krueger Sentry Gauge Co., 71 N. L. R. B. 1434 ; Matter of E. H Sargent and Company,
72 N L. R. B. 220.
740 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
forelady who reported the matter to the Employer and insisted on
Fila's discharge. Fila was thereupon discharged.° Subsequently the
forelady's employment was terminated. On February 17, 1947, Fila
was rehired. On February 28, the day of the election, Fila appeared
at the polls. Her name was not on the eligibility list. The represent-
atives of the Employer and the Petitioner at the polls agreed that
Fila had been rehired by the Employer subsequent to the eligibility
date and was ineligible to vote. It was further agreed that Fila's
ineligibility was free from doubt and that it was unnecessary for her
to vote under challenge. Fila left the polls without voting. After
completion of the counting of the ballots, the Employer's president
and the Employer's representative at the election were asked if they
had any objection to the conduct of the election. Both stated that they
had no objections. Under these circumstances, we find that Fila was
not in the employ of the Employer on the eligibility date and, there-
fore, was ineligible to vote.
Since the Petitioner has received a majority of the valid votes cast
in the election, we shall certify the Petitioner as the collective bar-
gaining representative of the employees in the unit hereinbefore found
appropriate.
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that United Hatters, Cap and Millinery
Workers International Union, A. F. of L., has been designated and
selected by a majority of all production employees, including pack-
ers, shippers, learners, and part-time students, but excluding execu-
tives, office employees, maintenance employees, and all supervisory
employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or
otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or effectively
recommend such action, as their representative for the purposes of
collective bargaining and that, pursuant to Section 9 (a) of the
National Labor Relations Act, United Hatters, Cap and Millinery
Workers International Union, A. F. of L., is the exclusive repre-
sentative of all such employees for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and
other conditions of employment.
B Although , in the course of his testimony the Employer ' s president stated that he con-
sidered Fila to be temporarily laid off , a reading of his entire testimony persuades us that,
for all practical purposes , Fila was definitely separated from the Employer 's employ on
January 27 , 1947, and subsequently rehired.