The Duplan Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 3, 1948

76 N.L.R.B. 545 (N.L.R.B. 1948)

In the Matter of THE DIIPLAN. CORPORATION, EmPLoYER and TEXTILE
`YORKERS UNION Or AMERICA, C. I. 0., PETITIONER
Case No. 5W-R-90.Decided March 3, 1948
Mr. W. S. I3la7feney, of Charlotte, N. C., for the Employer.
Mr. J. H. Fullerton, of Charlotte, N. C., for the Petitioner.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION'
Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at Charlotte,
North Carolina, on July 23, 1947, before Charles B. Slaughter, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from
prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. At the hearing, the Em-
ployer moved that the petition be dismissed on the grounds that certain
of its employees had expressed a desire to management that they did
not now wish to be represented by the Petitioner and that it expected
that the size of the unit would be more than doubled within approxi-
mately 6 months due to proposed expansion of its facilities. For
reasons discussed in Section V, infra, the motion is hereby denied.
Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations
Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. TIIE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
The Duplan Corporation is a Delaware corporation which owns and
operates various yarn and cloth manufacturing establishments in
Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Virginia, and Canada. We are con-
cerned in this proceeding only with the Employer's plant located at
Lincohiton, North Caroluia. During the past year, the Employer pur-
chased for this plant cotton and rayon valued in excess of $50,000,
of which more than 75 percent was received at the Lincolnton plant
from points outside the State of North Carolina. During the same
period, the Employer manufactured yarns valued in excess of $75,000,
of which more than 75 percent was shipped to points outside the State.
'Pursuant to Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the Board has dele-
gated its powers in connection with this case to a three-man panel consisting of the under-
signed Board members [Chairman Herzog and Members Reynolds and Murdock]
76 N L R. B, No. 85.
545
546 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
We find that the Employer is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
II. TILE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Petitioner is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress
of Industrial Organizations 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 Employer and the Petitioner are in agreement that the appro-
priate unit should consist of all the Employer's production and main-
tenance employees, excluding office and clerical employees and super-
visors. However, the Petitioner would include three plant guards,
whereas the Employer would exclude them. The record reveals that
although the Employer's guards are neither uniformed nor deputized,
they are armed. Their principal function is the protection of the
Employer's premises. In accordance with the provisions of Section
9 (b) (3) of the Act, as amended, we shall exclude the guards from
the unit.'
We find that all the Employer's production and maintenance eui-
ployees, excluding guards, office and clerical employees, and super-
visors, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
In support of its motion to dismiss the 'petition, the Employer
averred at the hearing that by January 1, 1948, its plant facilities
would be expanded so that the size of the unit found appropriate
in Section IV, supra, would be increased to about 300 employees.
The record reveals that prior to May 3, 1947, the Employer con-
ducted a spinning operation. After that date, however, full pro-
duction was discontinued for the purpose of overhauling the spinning
plant, and adding new equipment for a weaving operation. Between
2 See Matter of 0 V Hill & Company, Inc, 76 N L R B 158.
THE DUPLAN CORPORATION 547
May 3, 1947, and June 9, 1947, the Employer was in partial pro-
duction, in that cotton which was oil machines at the date of the
shut-down was periodically rolled on spools. On May 3, 1947, the
Employer employed approximately 131 workers, of whom approxi-
mately 55 were utilized during the period of partial operations.
The Employer proposes to rehire all of its workers employed prior
to its shut-down; it continues to carry insurance for them and con-
siders them its employees. Virtually all of these employees live in
a small community near the Employer's plant.
The circumstance that, as of the date of the hearing in July 1947.
the Employer expected that its normal complement would be some-
what more than doubled in about 6 months might have warranted
postponement of an election for a reasonable period until the con-
templated expansion had either taken place or failed to materialize.'
However, more than 6 months have now elapsed since the hearing in
this case. We are of the opinion that there should be no further
delay in according the employees presently employed an opportunity
to select a bargaining representative
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the
purposes of collective bargaining with Duplan Corporation, Lincoln-
ton, North Carolina, an election by secret ballot shall be conducted as
early as possible, but not later than thirty (30) days from the date
of this Direction, under the direction and supervision of the Regional
Director for the Fifth Region, and subject to Sections 203.61 and
203.62 of the National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations--
Series 5, among the employees in the unit found appropriate in See-
tion IV, above, who were employed during the pay-roll period imme-
diately preceding the date of this Direction, including employees who
(lid not work during said pay-roll period because they were ill or on
vacation or temporarily laid off, but excluding those employees who
have sin ce quit or been discharged for cause and have not been rehired
or reinstated prior to the date of the election, and also excluding em-
ployees on strike who are not entitled to reinstatement, to determine
whether or not they desire to be represented by Textile Workers Union
of America, C. I. 0., for the purposes of collective bargaining.
3 The Employer originally estimated that resumption of its spinning operations would
take place on October 1. 1947. This date was subsequently revised to Novembei 1, 1947,
due to unforeseen difficulties in oveahauling the spinning machinery
4 We also find the Employer's second ground for dismissal to be without merit A peti-
tion for revocation of designation which the Employer alleges was signed by its employees
was not produced at the hearing. In any event, we are of the opinion that the question
Concerning representation should be resolved by a Board-conducted election
781902-48-vol 76-36