Wytheville Knitting Mills, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 23, 1957

117 N.L.R.B. 1719 (N.L.R.B. 1957)

WYT'aEVILLE KNITTING MILLS, INC. 1719
related duties and skills, we find, under all the circumstances, that
the Employer's welders constitute a separate appropriate craft unit.
Accordingly, we find that all welders, helpers, assistants, appren-
tices, and leadmen at the Employer's Anaheim, California, plant,
excluding all other employees, guards, professional employees, and
supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for
the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section
9 (b) of the Act.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the UAW's request to withdraw its peti-
tion in Case No. 21-RC-4555, be, and it hereby is, granted with
prejudice to its filing a new petition for a period of 6 months from the
date of this Order, unless good cause is shown why the Board should
entertain a new petition filed prior to the expiration of such period.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
Wytheville Knitting Mills, Inc. and American Federation of
Hosiery Workers, AFL-CIO. Case No. 5-CA-1102. May 23,1957
DECISION AND ORDER
On March 20, 1957, Trial Examiner William F. Scharnikow issued
his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair
labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom
and take affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate
Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions
to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief.
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-member panel [Members Rodgers, Bean, and
Jenkins].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed.' The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and brief in support thereof, and the
entire record in this case, and adopts the findings, conclusions, and
recommendations of the Trial Examiner, with the following addition :
1 We specifically affirm the Trial Examiner 's rejection of the Respondent's offers of proof
for the reasons stated by the Trial Examiner, and also for the reason that it is apparent
that the evidence relied upon by the Respondent , even if received , would not have altered
our determination of the appropriateness of the bargaining unit at the plant in question,
which was wholly within the framework of established Board unit policy.
117 NLRB No. 228.
1720 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
In agreement with the Trial Examiner, we find that the Respondent
on ,and since October 2, 1956, refused to bargain collectively in good
faith with the Union in violation of Section 8 (a) (5) and (1) of the
Act. In making this finding we note that the Court of Appeals for the
Fourth Circuit recently affirmed the Board's decision in Morganton
Full Fashioned Hosiery Company, 115 NLRB 1267,2 in which the
Board found a violation of Section 8 (a) (5) in the refusal of the
Respondent in that case to bargain collectively in good faith with the
Union as exclusive bargaining representative of a unit of knitters.
The court distinguished its earlier Glen Raven decision 3 by holding
that in Morganton, unlike Glen Raven, the Board's unit determina-
tion was not controlled by the extent of the Union's organization of
employees. In the instant case, although the Union participated in
an election in a unit of production and maintenance employees in 1946,
which it lost, it is apparent that at no time since did it attempt to
organize the employees on a plantwide basis. In 1955, after a lapse
of 9 years, the Union filed a petition for a unit of knitters. On the
record, we are satisfied that our unit determination was predicated on
well established Board unit policy 4 and in no way controlled by the
extent of the Union's organization of employees. Moreover, the unit
found appropriate in the instant case is essentially the same type of
unit found appropriate in the Morganton case, in which the court af-
firmed the Board's order. While we respectfully disagree with the
court in Glen Raven that the Board's unit determination rested on
extent of organization, it is entirely clear, in any event, that the unit
determination herein falls squarely within the purview of the court's
rationale in its Morganton decision. Accordingly, both for the rea-
sons expressed by the Trial Examiner and on the basis of the Morgan-
ton decision, we affirm the Trial Examiner's ultimate findings and
conclusions.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations
Board hereby orders the Respondent, Wytheville Knitting Mills, Inc.,
Wytheville, Virginia, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns shall :
1. Cease and desist from refusing to bargain collectively in good
faith concerning wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of em-
ployment, with American Federation of Hosiery Workers, AFL-CIO,
as the exclusive representative of all its employees in the following ap-
propriate unit : All full-fashioned knitters and knitter helpers
7 N L. R. B. V. Morganton Full Fashioned Hosiery Company, 241 F 2d 913 (C A 4).
s N L. R. B v. Glen Raven Knitting Mills , Inc, 235 F. 2d 413 (C A. 4).
* Mock, Judson, Voerhinger Company, 110 NLRB 437 , Angelica Hosiery Mills , Inc, 95
NLRB 1284.
WYTHEVILLE KNITTING MILLS, INC. 1721
(trainees) at the Respondent's hosiery mill located in Wytheville,
Virginia, excluding all other employees, office clerical employees,
guards, fixers, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
a. Upon request, bargain collectively with the above-named Union
as exclusive representative of all the employees in the appropriate
unit, described above, and embody in a signed agreement any under-
standing reached.
b. Post at its mill in Wytheville, Virginia, copies of the notice
attached hereto marked "Appendix A." 5 Copies of said notice
to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Fifth Region, shall,
after being duly signed by the Respondent or its representative, be
posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof and main-
tained by it for sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous
places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure
that such notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material.
c. Notify the Regional Director in writing, within ten (10) days
from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to
comply therewith.
I In event that this Oider is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals,
there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order " the words
"Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order."
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that :
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively with American Fed-
eration of Hosiery Workers, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive repre-
sentative of the employees in the bargaining unit described below.
WE WILL, upon request, bargain with American Federation of
Hosiery Workers, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative of
all the employees in the apropriate unit with respect to wages,
rates of pay, hours of employment, and other terms and conditions
of employment, and embody in a signed agreement any under-
standing reached.
The bargaining unit is :
All full-fashioned knitters and knitter helpers ( trainees) at
our hosiery mill located in Wytheville, Virginia, excluding all
1722 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
other employees, office clericals, guards, fixers, and supervisors
as defined in the Act.
WYTHEVILLE KNITTING MILLS, INC.,
Employer.
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER
The complaint alleges, but the answer of the Respondent (Wytheville Knitting
Mills, Inc. ) denies, that on and since October 2, 1956, the Respondent has com-
mitted an unfair labor practice affecting commerce within the meaning of Section
8 (a) (5) and (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act
(61 Stat. 136) by refusing to bargain collectively with the Union (American
Federation of Hosiery Workers, AFL-CIO) as the exclusive bargaining repre-
sentative of an appropriate employee unit consisting of the full-fashioned knitters
and knitter helpers ( trainees ) employed at the Respondent 's Wytheville , Virginia,
plant.
Actually, the only issue raised by the Respondent in the present case is the
appropriateness of this bargaining unit, for which the Board , over the Respondent's
objection , had certified the Union as exclusive bargaining representative on December
8, 1955, after a hearing , Decision and Direction of Election , and an employee elec-
tion in Representation Case No. 5-RC-1793 . All other essentials of the complaint
are either admitted by the Respondent in its answer or have been established by
stipulation or uncontradicted evidence at a hearing held before the duly designated
Trial Examiner at Wytheville, Virginia, on February 12, 1957.1 Thus, the Re-
spondent 's answer admits , and the Trial Examiner accordingly finds, that: The
Union is a labor organization ; the Respondent 's business operations at Wytheville,
Virginia (as they are described in the complaint) 2 affect commerce; a majority of
the employees in the alleged appropriate bargaining unit did, in fact, vote for repre-
sentation by the Union in the election conducted in the representation proceeding
under the Board's supervision on November 30, 1955; 3 the Board, on December
8, 1955, thereupon formally certified the Union as the exclusive bargaining repre-
sentative of the employees in this unit ; and on or about February 8, 1956, the
Union requested the Respondent to bargain collectively with the Union as the
exclusive bargaining representative of the employees in this unit. And, from stipula-
tions and uncontradicted evidence submitted at the brief hearing in the present
complaint case , it appears , and the Trial Examiner further finds, that : There were
"negotiation meetings" between the Respondent and the Union on February 8 and
9, April 10, and May 16 and 17, 1956; the Respondent then petitioned the Board
on August 24, 1956, to set aside the Union 's certification because it asserted that
the intervening decision of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in the
' On February 25, 1957, the General Counsel , on due notice to the other parties, filed
a motion with the Trial Examiner to correct certain specific errors in the official tran-
script of the hearing The motion has not been opposed and is hereby granted.
2 The complaint alleges, the Respondent 's answer admits , and the Trial Examiner finds
that the Respondent , a Virginia corporation with its principal office at Reading, Penn-
sylvania, operates a plant at Wytheville , Virginia , where it is engaged in the manufacture
and sale of women's full-fashioned hosiery ; that, in the course of its Wytheville opera-
tions, the Respondent annually purchases goods and materials of a value in excess of
$50,000, more than 50 percent of which is shipped to its Wytheville plant directly from
points outside the Commonwealth of Virginia ; and that, in the same operations, the
Respondent annually sells and ships goods of a value in excess of $100 ,000, more than 50
percent of which is sold and shipped from its Wytheville plant directly to points and
places outside the Commonwealth of Virginia
8 The tally of the ballots shows that 134 of the 138 eligible employees in the unit cast
valid ballots , of which 87 were cast for representation by the Union and 47 were cast
against such representation.
WYTHEVILLE KNITTING MILLS, INC. 1723
Glen Raven Knitting Mills case 4 supported its contention that the unit for which
the Union had been certified and was acting, was inappropriate; the Board denied
this motion on September 20, 1956; and the Respondent then notified the Union
by letter on October 2, 1956, that, in view of its belief that the Board was in error
as to the appropriate unit and its intention to rely upon the court's decision in the
Glen Raven case, it did "not see why future bargaining sessions should be held."
Consistent with the position then taken by the Respondent, the only defense
it now urges for its refusal to bargain with the Union is based upon its contention that
the employee unit appropriate for collective bargaining is not the unit of knitters and
knitter helpers for which the Board issued its certification of the Union, but rather a
unit embracing all the production and maintenance employees at the Respondent's
Wytheville plant. But during the representation case, the Board twice rejected this
contention, first in its Decision and Direction of Election and again in its denial
of the Respondent's motion to vacate the Union's certification because of the court's
decision in the Glen Raven case. Thus by the time the present case came to hearing
before the Trial Examiner, the Board had already rejected the only contentions and
arguments upon which the Respondent now relies. Under these circumstances, the
Trial Examiner denied a motion made at the hearing by the Respondent's counsel
to dismiss the complaint in view of the court's decision in the Glen Raven case and
the alleged inappropriateness of the certified bargaining unit. And, because all the
evidence now relied upon by the Respondent in support of its contention had been
known and available to it at the time of the representation hearing-and, indeed,
for the most part had actually been received and considered by the Board-the
Trial Examiner also rejected the Respondent's offers to prove at the hearing in
the present complaint case that: (1) The operations of the employees at the Re-
spondent 's plant, other than its knitters , were also skilled operations, required con-
siderable training, and were subject to separate supervision; (2) the operations and
categories of employees in all full-fashioned knitting mills throughout the United
States (including the Respondent's Wytheville mill and the Glen Raven Knitting
Mills) are essentially the same; (3) a strike of Respondent's knitters would shut
down the Wytheville plant within 24 hours and thus affect all the other production
and maintenance employees; (4) all the Respondent's employees are eligible for
membership in the Union; and (5) in his testimony in the Glen Raven case, the
Union's regional director in effect stated that the Union would seek an appropriate
unit consisting of either the knitters or all the production and maintenance employees,
depending "on which [it] had got to sign up."
In a brief filed with the Trial Examiner since the hearing, counsel for the Respond-
ent has again presented its argument that the knitters unit is inappropriate and that
the complaint should therefore be dismissed. The Trial Examiner, however, believes
that the Board's contrary decision and rulings in the representation case are con-
trolling on this issue. Accordingly, he denies the Respondent's renewal of its motion
to dismiss the complaint.
In accordance with the Board's findings and conclusions in the representation case
and upon the admissions in the Respondent's answer, the stipulations, and the un-
contradicted evidence in the present proceeding, the Trial Examiner makes the fol-
lowing findings of ultimate fact and conclusions of law:
1. American Federation of Hosiery Workers, AFL,-CIO, is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. The Respondent, Wytheville Knitting Mills, Inc., through the conduct of its
operations at its Wytheville, Virginia , plant, is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2 (6) of the Act.
3. All full-fashioned knitters and knitter helpers (trainees) at the Respondent's
hosiery mills located in Wytheville, Virginia, excluding all other employees, office
clericals, guards, fixers, and supervisors as defined in the Act, have constituted, and
now constitute, a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
4. On November 30, 1955, a majority of the employees in the aforesaid appro-
priate unit designated the Union as their exclusive bargaining representative.
5. The aforesaid Union is now, and has been at all times since November 30,
1955, the exclusive bargaining representative of all the employees in the aforesaid
appropriate unit within the meaning of Section 9 (a) of the Act.
6. On and since October 2, 1956, the Respondent has refused to-bargain collec-
tively in good faith with the Union as the exclusive bargaining representative of its
employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit.
a N L. R. B. v. Glen Raven Knitting Mills, 235 F. 2d 413.
1724 DECISIONS Or NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
7. In thus refusing to bargain collectively with the above -named Union as the
exclusive representative of the employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit, the
Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8 (a) (5) and ( 1) of the Act.
8. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and ( 7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
Thatcher Glass Manufacturing Company, Inc. and Robert Edger
and American Flint Glass Workers' Union of North America,
AFL-CIO, and its agent George M. Parker, and Local 135,
American Flint Glass Workers' Union of North America, AFL-
CIO. Cases Nos. 3-CA-950 and 3-CB-268. May 23,1957
s DECISION AND ORDER
On November 26, 1956, Trial Examiner Thomas N. Kessel issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondents had not engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged
in the complaint, and recommending that the complaint be dismissed,
as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto.
Thereafter, the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Intermediate
Report together with a supporting brief, and the Respondents filed
briefs in support of the Intermediate Report.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three- member
panel [Chairman Leedom and Members Bean and Jenkins].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in
the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda-
tions contained in the Intermediate Report.'
[The Board dismissed the complaint.]
I The Charging Party, Robe, t Edger, was laid off by Respondent Company on the de-
mand of Respondent Union because of Edger's refusal to make certain "death benefit" or
"insurance" payments to the Union The complaint did not allege, and the General Counsel
specifically stated at the hearing that he was not contending , that the discharge was un-
lawful because the "death benefit" and "insurance" payments were not "periodic dues "
The sole issue as stated by the General Counsel was whether the existing collective-bar-
gaining contract between the Respondents contained a union-shop provision. In view of
the narrow issue raised by the General Counsel , we do not decide whether a discharge
for the reasons assigned would be unlawful if such issue was properly before the Board
for decision
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge and amended charge in Case No. 3-CA-950 filed by Robert Edger,
an individual , against Thatcher Glass Manufacturing Company, Inc., herein called
the Company , and upon a charge and amended charge in Case No. 3-CB -268 filed by
117 NLRB No. 225.