The Clark Thread Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 9, 1948

79 N.L.R.B. 542 (N.L.R.B. 1948)

In the Matter of THE CLARK THREAD COMPANY, EMPLOYER and TEx-
TILE WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, C. I. 0., PETITIONER
'Case' No. '10-RC-19'.Decided "September 9, 1948
DECISION
AND
'DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before a hearing offi-
cer of the National Labor Relations Board. The hearing officer's rul-
ings made at,the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby
affirmed. I -
- Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection,with
this case to a three-man panel consisting of the undersigned Board
Members.* • - - , .
Upon the' entire record in this case, the Board finds:,
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the National Labor Relations Act.
2. The Petitioner, and the United Textile Workers of America,
affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, herein called the
Intervenor, are labor organizations, claiming to represent employes of
the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of certain employees of the Employer, within the meaning of Sec-
tion 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The appropriate unit:
The Petitioner and the Intervenor seek a unit composed of all the
production and maintenance employees at the Employer's Albany,
Georgia, plant, including employees of the Stowell-MacGregor Cor-
poration, but excluding office and clerical employees, gatemen, guards,
professional employees, foremen, foreladies, and other supervisors, as
defined in the Act. Except for the employees of the Stowell-Mac-
Gregor Corporation, plant clericals and gatemen, the Employer
* Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Reynolds.
79 N. L. It. B. No. 71.
542
THE CLARK THREAD COMPANY 543
agrees that the categories of employees sought by the Petitioner and the
Intervenor are ' appropriate, but contends that the unit should be a
multi-plant one, embracing the employees of the Employer's plants at
Pelham and Thomasville, Georgia.
The Albany plant contains the Employer's principal offices. At
this plant, the Employer controls all purchasing, and exercises a cen-
tralized control over the several operations of its two other plants,
under the over-all supervision of a vice president. It further appears
that the Pelham and Thomasville plants produce yarn in the grey, and
their entire production is sent to the Albany plant in which it is fin-
ished, and put in salable form. The Albany plant, moreover, ships
all the Employer's finished goods, keeps the records, and prepares the
pay rolls for the Employer's two other plants. It would thus appear
that the unit, in scope, may be one which includes employees at all
three plants of the Employer.
There are factors, however, which would justify a unit confined to
the employees of the Albany plant, apart from the employees in the
Employer's other two plants. Thus, the Thomasville and Pelham
plants are approximately 55 and 20 miles distant respectively from
the Albany plant; interchange or transfers of employees between the
Albany and the other two plants is rather infrequent; and the em-
ployees at each plant have little contact with each other. Although
there exists centralized control, the Employer has a separate super-
visory staff in each plant, and the hiring and discharging of employees
is effected locally for each plant. In view of the foregoing, and the
fact that there is no history of collective bargaining on either a multi-
plant or single-plant basis, we are persuaded that a unit confined to
the employees of the Employer's Albany, Georgia, plant is appro-
priate.11
Stowell-MacGregor Employees: The Stowell-MacGregor Corpora-
tion is a separate corporate entity. On this basis, the Employer con-
tends that the employees of this corporation should not be included
in the unit sought. The employees of Stowell-MacGregor, Corpora-
tion are engaged in the manufacturing of spools, and its entire pro-
duction is used by the Employer. The records further disclose that :
(1) the Stowell-MacGregor Corporation. plant is located on the Em-
ployer's property, adjacent to the Employer's Albany plant;' (2) its
employees are paid by the Employer; and (3) its records are kept in
the office of the Employer. However, in the absence of any affirma-
tive evidence of common control of the labor relations policies of these
two entities, we believe that.the Stowell-MacGregor Corporation and
Matter of Burgess Battery Company, 76 N. L. R. B . 820; Matter of Seminole Manufac-
turing Company, 74 N. L R. B. 1090.
544 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the Employer do not constitute a single employer within the meaning,
of Section 2 (2) of the Act. Accordingly, we shall exclude these
employees.
Plant Clericals: The Employer has a number of employees who work
as shipping clerks, receiving clerks, storage clerks, production clerks
and timekeepers. They work in close proximity to the production
workers , and have interests more closely related to those employees
working in the plant than those of the office clerical employees. In
accordance with our usual practice,2 we shall include them as plant
clericals in the unit hereinafter found appropriate.
Gatemen: The Employer has two day gatemen -whose duties are
to check the identification badges of employees, and otherwise check
persons entering or leaving the plant. Under these circumstances, we
find, contrary to the Employer's contention, that these two employees
are guards within the meaning of the Act.3 Accordingly, we shall
exclude them.
We find that all production and maintenance employees at the
Employer's Albany, Georgia, plant, including plant clericals, but
excluding employees of the Pelham and Thomasville plants, employees
of the Stowell-MacGregor Corporation, office and clerical employees,
gatemen, guards, professional employees, foremen, foreladies, and
other supervisors, as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate
for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Sec-
tion 9 (b) of the Act.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION 4
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the
purposes of collective bargaining with the Employer, an election by
secret ballot shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later
than 30 days from the date of this Direction, under the direction
and supervision of the Regional Director for the Region in wfiich
this case was heard, and subject to Sections 203.61 and 203.62 of Na-
tional Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 5, among
the employees in the unit found appropriate in paragraph numbered
4, above, who were employed during the pay-roll period immediately
preceding the date of this Direction of Election, 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
2 Matter of H & H Manufacturing Company, Inc ., 76 N. L . It. B. 459; Matter of Moran
Shoe Company, 77 N. L. R. B. 665.
3 Matter of C. V. Hill & Company, Inc., 76 N. L R B. 158.
* Any participant in the election directed herein may , upon its prompt request to, and
approval thereof by , the Regional Director , have its name removed from the ballot.
THE CLARK THREAD COMPANY 545
who have since quit or been discharged for cause and have not been
rehired or reinstated prior to the date of the election, and also ex-
cluding employees on strike who are not entitled to reinstatement, to
determine whether they desire to be represented, for purposes of col-
lective bargaining, by Textile Workers Union of America, C. I. 0.,
or by United Textile Workers of America, AFL, or by neither.
CHAIRMAN IIERT,OG took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Direction of Election.
I>