Tower Hosiery Mills, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 16, 1944

58 N.L.R.B. 1053 (N.L.R.B. 1944)

In the Matter of TOWER HOSIERY MILLS, INC. and AMERICAN FEDERA-
TION OF HOSIERY WORKERS, AFFILIATED WITH C. I. O. THROUGH
TExTILE WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA
Case No. 5-R-1655.-Decided October 16, 1944
Mr. L. P. McLendon,. of Greensboro, N. C., and Mr. Thomas D.
Cooper, of Burlington, N. C., for the Company.
Mr. W. Cedric Stallings, of Charlotte, N. C., and Mr. Myles H.
Cunningham, of Durham, N. C., for the Union.
Miss Ruth Rusch, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a petition duly filed by American Federation of Hosiery
Workers, affiliated with C. I. O. through Textile Workers Union of
America, herein called the Union, alleging that a question affecting
commerce had arisen concerning the representation of employees of
Tower Hosiery Mills, Inc., Burlington, North Carolina, herein called
the Company, the National Labor Relations Board provided for an
appropriate hearing upon due notice before Sidney J. Barban, Trial
Examiner. Said hearing was held at Burlington, North Carolina, on
September 8, 1944. The Company and the Union appeared and
participated. All parties were afforded full opportunity to be heard,
to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence
bearing on the issues. At the hearing, the Company moved to dis-
miss the Union's petition on the ground that there was an insufficient
showing of substantial interest. The Trial Examiner reserved ruling
on the motion for the Board's determination. For reasons indicated
in' Section III, infra, the motion is denied. The Trial Examiner's
rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are
hereby affirmed. All parties were afforded an opportunity to file
briefs with the Board.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following:
58 N L R B., No 198.
1053
1054 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR REL4TI9NS BOARD
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
The Company is a North Carolina corporation engaged in the manu-
facture of ladies' stockings. During the first 6 months of the year,
the Company purchased raw materials, consisting of rayon and cotton,
amounting to $250,000 in value, of which 80 percent was shipped from
sources outside the State- of North Carolina. For the same period,
the Company's finished products amounted to $450,000 in value, of'
which 99 percent was shipped to points outside the State of North
Carolina.
,We find that the Company is engaged in commerce within the mean-
ing of the National Labor Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
American Federation of Hosiery Workers is a labor organization
affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations and the Tex-
tile Workers Union of America, admitting to membership employees
.of the Company.
.III. THE, QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Company has refused to grant recognition to the Union as the
exclusive bargaining representative of its production and maintenance
employees until the Union has been certified by the Board in an ap-
propriate unit.
On October 2, 1940, the Company and the Union entered into an
agreement for a consent election, which was held on October 15, 1940.
Although the Union won the election, no contract was ever entered into
between the Company and the Union.
A statement of a Field Examiner, introduced into evidence at the
hearing, indicates that the Union represents a substantial number of
employees in the unit hereinafter found appropriate.,
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning
the representation of employees of the Company, within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The Union claims in its petition that the appropriate unit com-
prises production and maintenance employees, excluding office, cleri-
cal, and supervisory employees. The Company does not object to the
proposed unit except that it would include watchmen and firemen,
whom the Union would exclude on the ground that it has not organized
them and does not ordinarily bargain for such employees. The watch-
I The Field Examiner reported that the Union submitted I I1 membership cards There
are 162 employees in the appropriate unit The cards Neie variously dated between
January and August 1944.
TOWER HOSIERY MILLS, INC. 1055
men are not sworn in by either civil or military authorities. Each
of the three watchmen works on a different shift. It is their duty to
clean the plant, fire the boiler, and fill the stoker on their respective
shifts. We find that the watchmen and firemen should be included
in the unit since they are maintenance employees.2
There is a disagreement over the classification of certain employees
who work in the plant. Among them are fou- 3 whom the Union would
exclude as clerical employees. One of the employees in dispute checks
and records the weight of yarn as it is delivered to the factory. He
also records the shipment of goods from the plant. All the employees
in this group distribute yarn to the knitters, collect goods f rom the
knitters, and help pack the goods for shipment. One of these em-
ployees, who works on the third shift, when very few production
employees are working, also collects the waste which accumulates
during' the day. We shall include all these employees in the unit
because they are production employees whose clerical duties are minor
and incidental to the production process.
The Company maintains that its only supervisory employees are
the plant superintendent and the four foremen fixers; whereas the
Union contends that the fixers and the forelady are also supervisory
employees and should, therefore, be excluded. The fixers are me-
chanics who repair the machinery in the plant. At present, they do
not have anyone working under their supervision though at times
they have had helpers. The fixers are paid on an hourly basis while
the foremen fixers are paid on a salary basis. The fixers were appar-
ently excluded, as supervisory employees,4 from the unit defined in a
previous consent election. Nevertheless, since there is no evidence
indicating that they have authority to hire, discharge, or discipline
employees, or recommend such action, we shall include the fixers in
the unit.
The foreladyy is in charge of the looping, seaming, and checking
department. Her work is similar to that of the inspectors since she
checks the work; but, in addition, she investigates the cause for defec-
tive work and notifies the foreman of bad workmanship on the part
of employees. She is paid at a slightly higher rate than: the inspec-
tors. The Company insists that the forelady does not have the au-
thority to hire, discharge, or recommend such action. However, we
are of the opinion that the forelady has substantial supervisory
authority in view of her duty of reporting on the competence of
employees, her title, and the fact that she appears to be the only person
who assists the plant superintendent in the supervision of the produc-
tion employees. We shall,. therefore, exclude her from the unit.
z Matter of North Carolina Finishing Company, 44 N L R B 681.
3 They are' Walters, Ha,thcock, Pickard, and Crawford
4 The consent election agieeinent is ambiguous in its reference to fixers However, the
iecoid shows that the fixers slid not vote in the election.
1056 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
We find that all production and maintgnance employees including
the fixers and the watchmen and firemen, but excluding all office and
clerical employees, the forelady, and all other 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 collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
We shall direct that the question concerning representation which
has arisen be resolved by an election by secret ballot among the em-
ployees in the appropriate unit who were employed during the pay-
roll period immediately preceding the date of the Direction of Election
herein, subject to the limitations and additions set forth yin the
Direction.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National
Labor Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, and pursuant to Article III, Section 9, of National Labor
Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 3, as amended, it is
hereby
DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation to ascertain representa-
tives for the, purposes of collective bargaining with Tower Hosiery
Mills, Inc., Burlington, 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 super-
vision of the Regional Director for the Fifth Region, acting in this
matter as agent for the National Labor Relations Board, and subject
to Article III, Sections 10 and 11, of said Rules and Regulations,
among the employees in the unit found appropriate in Section IV,
above, who were employed during the pay-roll period immediately
preceding the date of this Direction, including employees who did
not work during the said pay-roll period because they were ill or on
vacation or temporarily laid off, and including employees in the armed
forces of the United States who present themselves in person at the
polls, but excluding those employees who have since quit or been dis-
charged for cause and have not been rehired or reinstated prior to
the date of the election, to determine whether or not they desire to
be represented by American Federation of Hosiery Workers, affiliated
- with the C. I. O. through the Textile Workers Union of America,
for the purposes of collective bargaining.
MR. GERARD D. REILLY took no part in the consideration of the
above Decision and Direction of Election.