Waldensian Hosiery Mills, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 20, 1947

74 N.L.R.B. 315 (N.L.R.B. 1947)

In the Matter Of WALDENSIAN HOSIERY MILLS, INCORPORATED, EM-
PLOYER and AMERICAN FEDERATION OF HOSIERY WORKERS, C. I. 0.,
PETITIONER
Case No. 5-R-9730.Decided June 20, 1947
Messrs. S. J. Ervin, Jr., and Frank C. Patton, of Morgantown, N. C.,
for the Employer.
Mr. H. G. B. King, of Chattanooga, Tenn., for the Petitioner.
Mr. Leonard J. Mandl, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at Ashe-
ville, North Carolina, on January 28,1947, before Charles B. Slaughter,
hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are
free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations
Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
Waldensian Hosiery Mills, Incorporated, a North Carolina corpora,
tion, is engaged in the business of manufacturing ladies' and men's full-
fashioned and seamless hosiery at its plant at Valdese, North Carolina.
During the last 6 months of 1946, it purchased raw materials valued in
excess of $46,000, for use at its plant, of which about 80 percent repre-
sented shipments from points outside the State of North Carolina.
During the same period it produced and sold 466,108 dozen pairs of
hosiery of which approximately 90 percent was shipped to points
outside the State.
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 Congress of
Industrial Organizations, claiming to represent employees of the
Employer.
74 N. L. R. B., No. 51. 315
316 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
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 affectin g 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. TIIE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The Petitioner seeks a unit composed of the employees in the Em-
ployer's finishing plant, excluding office, clerical, and supervisory em-
ployees. The Employer contends that the appropriate unit should
encompass all its production and maintenance employees.
The Employer operates 4 plants, a seamless knitting mill, a full-
fashioned knitting mill, a box plant, and a finishing plant. The lat-
ter 2 are located in adjoining buildings, whereas the others are sepa-
rately located about three-fourths of a mile away. The seamless and
full-fashioned knitting mills, employing about 175 and 125 employees,
respectively, knit the hosiery. After this process, the goods are sent
to the finishing plant where they are dyed, stamped, paired, boarded,
and packed for shipment. The box plant manufactures boxes. In
addition to the hosiery manufactured at its own mills, the Employer's
finishing plant finishes goods manufactured by other concerns. Al-
though all the Employer's operations are supervised by a general
superintendent, each plant has its own superintendent, under whom
are foremen for each operation. Hiring is done by foremen, superin-
tendents, and the central personnel office. When the personnel office
hires an individual, the superintendent or foreman under whom he is
to work in any of the 4 plants has the power to reject the individual.
All personnel records are kept at the main office which is located in the
building housing the finishing department. The finishing plant em-
ployees utilize skills differing widely from those employed in the other
plants, and consequently there is little interchange of employees from
one plant to another. Although the Petitioner has attempted to or-
ganize the employees in all 4 plants, only the finishing plant workers
have shown any interest in'collective bargaining.
In view of the physical and administrative separation of the finish-
ing plant, the general absence of interchange of employees, the differ-
ence in skills required of employees in the various plants, and the ex-
tent of self-organization, Nye are of the opinion that the employees of
WALDENSIAN HOSIERY MILLS, INCORPORATED 317
the finishing plant may now constitute an appropriate bargaining unit.'
Accordingly, we find that all employees in the finishing plant, ex-
.cluding office and clerical 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 collective bar-
gaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
As part ul the investigation to ascertain representatives for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining with Waldensian Hosiery Mills, Incorpo-
rated, Valdese, 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, acting in this matteriT,
as agent for the National Labor Relations Board, and subject to Sec-
tions 203.55 and 203.56, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and
Regulations-Series 4, among the employees in the unit found appro-
priate in Section IV, above, who were employed during the pay-roll
period immediately preceding the date of this Direction, including em-
ployees who' did not work during 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 discharged for cause and have not been rehired or reinstated
prior to the date of the election, to determine whether or not they de-
sire to be represented by American Federation of Hosiery Workers,
C. I. 0., for the purposes of collective bargaining.
MR. JAMES J. REYNOLDS, JR., dissenting :
For the reasons stated in my dissenting opinion in Matter of Garden
State Hosiery Mills, Inc.' I do not believe that the extent of the Pe-
titioner's effective organization of the employees involved is a proper
factor to be used in determining the appropriate unit.
Accordingly, I would dismiss the petition herein.
See Matter of Garden State Hosiery Co, 74 N. L. R B 318, issued this day, in-
which a majority of the Board reaffirmed the Board ' s long standing practice of determining
the appropriateness of a bargaining unit in the light of the extent of organization, where
the record also shows the existence of certain other relevant factors and safeguards such
as are present here See also Matter of Nebel Knitting Company, 74 N L R B 310,
Matter of Chadbourne Hosiery Mills, Inc, 74 N I, R B 333, and cf Matter of Hudson
Hosiery Company, 74 N L R B 250, all issued this (lay
2 74 N L R B., No 52