Morowebb Cotton Mills Co.

In the Matter Of MOROWEBB COTTON MILLS COIVIPANY, EMPLOI ER and UNITED TEXTILE WORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL, PETITIONER Case No. 5-R-2678.-Decided January 21,1948 Mr. Bernard J. Self, of Baltimore , Md., for the Employer. Mr. John W. Pollard, of Gastonia , N. C., for the Petitioner. DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES Upon a petition duly filed, the National Labor Relations Board on January 15, 1947, conducted a prehearing election among employees of the Employer in the alleged appropriate unit, to determine whether or not they desired to be represented by the Petitioner for the purposes of collective bargaining. At the close of the election a Tally of Ballots was furnished the parties. The Tally shows that there were approximately 142 eligible voters and that 116 ballots were cast, of which 58 were for the Peti- tioner, 49 were against the Petitioner, and 9 were challenged. Thereafter, a hearing was held at Gastonia, North Carolina, on July 7, 1947, before Sidney J. Barban, 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 I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER Morowebb Cotton Mills Company is a North Carolina corporation engaged in the manufacture and sale of combed, carded and mercerized yarns. The operations of the Employer are conducted at Dallas, North Carolina. The Employer annually uses raw material, consisting prin- cipally of cotton, valued at approximately $800,000, of which 100 per- cent is shipped to the Employer's plant at Dallas, North Carolina, from points outside the State of North Carolina. The Employer manu- factures annually, at its plant at Dallas, North Carolina, products hav- 75 N. L. R. B., No. 118. 987 988 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ing an approximate value of $1,500,000, of which 90 percent is 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. H. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED The Petitioner is a labor organization affiliated with the American` Federation of Labor, 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 it has been certified by the Board in an appropriate iit. 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 parties stipulated that the appropriate unit should include all production and inaintenance employees employed by the Employer at its plant in Dallas, North Carolina, including watchmen, but exclud- ing the superintendent, overseers,' the master inechanic, clerical em- ployees and supervisory employees. The Employer contends that section men are not supervisors and should be included in the appro- priate unit, while the Petitioner maintains that section men are super- visors and should be excluded. Prior to the hearing, the parties had stipulated that the question as to the inclusion or exclusion of the section men should be determined in accordance with the then forth- coming decision of the Board on the same issue in Matter of Gastonia Combed Yar^ii Corporation.' Later, the Board issued its decision in the Gastonia case, in which it excluded section men from the appro- priate unit on the basis of prior bargaining history.' In the instant. case, however, there has been no past bargaining history. Accord- ingly, the Employer contends that the stipulation is not binding, and I The stipulation leads, in part, as follows "The question as to the inclusion of section men in or their exclusion from, the bargaining unit . shall be determined by and in accordance with the finding and determination made by the National Labor Relations Board on the same issue in its forthcoming decision in the Matter of Gastonia Combed Yarn Coporation, et at , Case No 5-R-2513, and such determination shall be final and binding upon the parties to this case, who hereby waive their right to a hearing on this issue, PROVIDED, that if the Board does not make any determination of the unit question as to. section men in its forthcoming decision . . . but defers determination of that issue until a later date because of other issues involved in that case or for any reason, this stipulation, shall become null and void and of no effect . . . 2 Matter of Gastonia Combed Yarn Corporation, 73 N L. R. B. 169. MOROWEBB COTTON MILLS COMPANY 989 that the decision in the Gastonia case is not a compelling precedent. It maintains that the inclusion or exclusion of the section men should be determined on the record in this case. We agree. The Employer employs approximately 175 production employees. Its plant operates around the clock and its employees are divided into three 8-hour shifts. There is one plant superintendent, under whom are 2 overseers. The day overseer is responsible for the operation of the plant from 6'a. in. until 9 p. in., but usually goes home for supper about 6 p. in. and "most of the time" returns to the plant after supper and remains until 9 p. m. The night overseer has charge of the plant from 9 p. m. until 6 a. m. Below the overseers, there are 9 section men, 3 on each shift. Most similar plants have overseers, second hands, and section men. The overseers and second hands in other plants are nor- inally supervisors, while the section men are not. The Employer, however, employs no second hands. - The chief duty of the Employer's section men is to keep the ma- chinery in good running order, and to make whatever 'adjustments are necessary on the machines. The Employer contends that a section, man has no authority to hire, discharge, discipline, or increase wages,, or effectively to recommend any of these actions. The Employer's witnesses testified that, if a section man observes a production employee violating a rule, he may call his attention to the violation; if the pro- duction employee persists, the section man reports the matter to the overseer, who makes an independent investigation ; that frequently, production employees make requests to the overseer through the section men, and the overseer relays orders or instructions to the production employees through the section men; that if a production employee is temporarily caught up on his work, he reports this fact to the section man and the section man may change his job temporarily and find something else for him to do until the matter can be reported to the overseer; and that if, upon change of shift, the section mail discovers that an employee is missing, and the overseer is absent temporarily, the section man can make changes in the assignment for the day. Accord- ing to the testimony of one overseer, if a production employee has a problem with respect to his work, he takes it up with one of the section men, who may make final adjustment of the matter or, in the event lie is unable to do so, refers it to one of the overseers. The overseer added: "You see, he (the section man) is there all the time with just a few employees and I am not." Section men are usually hourly paid employees, whereas some of the production and maintenance men are paid on a piece-work basis and others on an hourly basis. In the departments in which the rank and file employees are hourly paid, section men earn a little more. All '99O DECISIONS OF- NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD employees, up to and including the overseers, receive the same vacation .and insurance rights. , In determining whether or not section men are supervisors, we have taken into consideration, among other things, the large number of rank and file employees in the plant (175) and the fact that the only admitted supervisors in the plant at a given time are the superin- tendent and one overseer. The latter is frequently absent for substan- tial periods of time.' Under these circumstances, it is, in our opinion, inconceivable that the section men have no supervisory authority. Notwithstanding the contention of the Employer to the contrary, we find that the section men are, in fact, supervisors and must therefore be excluded from the appropriate unit. The Employer employs no full-time watchmen. There are, how- ,ever, some employees who work in the plant through the week as main- 4.enance employees, but who are employed as watchmen on week ends when the mill is not in operation. They are neither armed nor dep- utized. Their duties during the week ends are to watch out for fires and to raise an alarm if they discover one, to make the rounds and to punch the time clock at stated intervals. When they leave the plant, they lock it. As pointed out above, the parties agree that these em- ployees should be included in the appropriate unit. In view of the ,fact that these individuals spend a majority of their time doing main- tenance work, we shall include them in the unit as mai-ntenantce .employees.4 We find that all production and maintenance 5 employees employed ,by the Employer at its plant in Dallas, North Carolina, excluding the superintendent, overseers, the master mechanic, clerical employees, section men, and supervisors, as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purpose of collective bargaining within the mean- ing of Section 9 (b) of the Act. V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES As mentioned previously, the Tally of Ballots indicates that 58 votes we're cast for the Petitioner, 49 votes were cast against the Petitioner, and there were 9 challenged ballots. Therefore, the chal- lenged ballots were sufficient in number to affect the results of the ,election. The 9 challenged ballots were cast by the 9 section men whose duties have been described above. In view of the fact that we have ' See Matter of United States Gypsum Company , 65 N L R B 575 and Matter of Denison Cotton Mill Company, 63 N L. R. B 929 . Cf. Matter of Cole Instrument Company, 75 N. L R B 348 4 Matter of Charles E. Reed & Co , 54 N L. R B. 322 , and Matter of Northern Furniture Company, 54 N. L R B 947. Cf Matter of Swift and Company, 58 N. L R. B 617, Including part-time watchmen. MOROWEBB COTTON MILLS COMPANY 991 determined that the section men are supervisors , and hence excluded from the appropriate bargaining unit, we shall uphold the challenges to their ballots. Accordingly, the Petitioner has secured a majority of the valid votes cast , and is entitled to be certified as the bargaining representative of the employees in the unit found appropriate herein.. CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES IT Is HEREBY CERTIFIED that the United Textile Workers of America, AFL, has been designated and selected by a majority of all employees, of Morowebb Cotton Mills Company , Dallas, North Carolina, in the unit found appropriate in Section IV; above, as their representative- for the purposes of collective bargaining , and that, pursuant to Section 9 (a) of the Act, the said organization is the exclusive representative, of all such employees for the purposes of collective bargaining with respect to rates of pay , wages, hours of employment , and other con- ditions of employment. MEMBERS HOUSTON and GRAY took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Certification of Representatives.