Victor Hosiery Corp.

In the Matter of VICTOR HOSIERY CORPORATION, FAILOR HOSIERY CoRPo- RATION, H & M HOSIERY CORPORATION, JORDAN HOSIERY CORPORATION, AND REYNOLDS HOSIERY CORPORATION,' EMPLOYER and AMERICAN FEDERATION OF HOSIERY WORKERS, PETITIONER Case No. 5-RC-333.-Decided September 28,1949 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before Charles B. Slaughter, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. 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 Reynolds, Murdock, and Gray]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 1. The business of the Employer : The Victor Hosiery Corporation, a Maryland Corporation, herein called Victor, is engaged at its only mill at Hagerstown, Maryland, in the manufacture and sale of full-fashioned and seamless hosiery. Victor admits, and we find that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.2 Jordan Hosiery Corporation, a Maryland corporation, Failor Hosiery Corporation, a Maryland corporation, H & H Hosiery Cor- poration, a Pennsylvania corporation, and Reynolds Hosiery Corpo- ration, a Maryland corporation, herein respectively called Jordan, Failor, H & H, and Reynolds, and generally called the four corpora- tions, each has as its sole property one Reading full-fashioned hosiery knitting machine.3 These four very expensive pieces of equipment 1 The 5 corporations were named jointly as the Employer by the amended petition in this proceeding and the names appear as amended at the hearing. % During 1948 over 90 percent of Victor's raw materials, valued at approximately $300,000, were received from points outside the State of Maryland . During the same period over 90 percent of Victor's finished products , valued at approximately $800,000, were shipped to points outside the State of Maryland. Although figures covering the operations of the other four corporations were not furnished , it is clear from the record that the figures applicable to Victor included the operations of the four corporations. 8 These four corporations were incorporated during September and October 1946. It appears that at that time, when knitting machines were on a priority list, each of four knitters, employed by Victor, who has served in the armed forces and were entitled to 86 N. L. R. B., No. 34. 195 196 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD are located in the same knitting room which contains machines belong- ing to Victor. Victor maintains the machines, furnishes janitorial and watchman service, electricity, space, and all other necessary serv- ices for which no rent is paid. Victor furnishes all raw materials to the four knitting machines, retaining title at all times, and all knitted products are returned to Victor which grades, dies, boards, pairs, and generally finished the product. For this knitting service, Victor pays each corporation a fixed sum per dozen pairs of stockings based on the grade of stockings produced on the machine of each corporation. This constitutes the only income of each of the four corporations. Separate bank accounts are maintained for each corporation. How- ever, all bookkeeping services, preparation of checks, social security and tax forms, and other necessary office services are performed by Victor's only office employee who receives no separate compensation from these four corporations for the service rendered. The only employees of each of the four corporations are two knitters; former employees of Victor, who punch the same time clock; receive the Same base wage rate, work the same hours and under the same con- ditions, receive the same vacations and have access to the sane facili- ties as the employees of Victor. Further, the employees of these five corporations are supervised, along with Victor employees by Victor's supervisors, and'the employees of the five corporations are generally treated as a single employee group.4 Jordali, Failor, H & H, and Reynolds, each deny that they are en- gaged in interstate commerce and subject to the Board's jurisdiction Nxithili the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.6 A-11 five corporations assert that they are each an independent corporation and contend in substance that they should not collectively be deemed an employer within the meaning of Section 2 (2) of the Act. We find no merit to this contention. The facts set forth above clearly indicate the interdependence of operations of the five corporations and the exercise of effective control by Victor over the employees of the other veterans preference, with the encouragement , advice , and assistance of the president of Victor, applied for and received a knitting machine. The four corporations were then set up and each veteran assigned his machine to his respective corporation and received a major share of the stock of his corporation. The remaining shares in each corporation were assigned to Victor' s supervisors with the exception of one or two shares in three of the four corporations which were assigned to the secretary of the corporations ' attorney. Identical agreements were then executed between each of these four corporations and Victor covering their operating relationship . Three of the four veterans have since sold their stock to sons of Morris Ellis, president and principal stockholder of Victor. 4 As an example, the employees of all five corporations were recently assembled together at which time Morris Ellis, president and principal stockholder of Victor, discussed with them jointly certain wage proposals. 5 See Matter of Save Electric Corporation, at al., 79 N. L. R. B. 370; Matter of Unique Ventilation Co.. Inc., 75 N. L. R. B. 325 ; Matter of Schuylkill Products Company, Inc., 73 N. L. R. B. 340. VICTOR HOSIERY CORPORATION 197 four corporations. We find therefore, that Victor Hosiery Corpora- tion, Failor Hosiery Corporation, H & H Hosiery Corporation, Jor- dan Hosiery Corporation, and Reynolds Hosiery Corporation, to- gether constitute a single employer within the meaning of Section 2 (2) of the Act.' 2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain em- ployees of the Employer. . 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa- tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The Petitioner seeks a unit of all production and maintenance employees of the Employer excluding foremen, foreladies, office cleri-. cal employees, professional employees, watchmen, guards, and super- visors as defined in the Act. The parties are in disagreement as to the supervisory status of certain individuals, the Employer taking the position that only the general superintendent is a supervisor. . Among those individuals whom the Petitioner would exclude as supervisors are officers of the four corporations.' Although they are also regularly employed in the production operation, because of their positions as a part of management, we shall exclude them from the unit hereinafter found appropriate. There remains for consideration the determination of the super- visory status of certain other individuals. Foreladies: The two foreladies,$ in the finishing department and the seamless department, supervise the work and can effectively recom- mend firing or transfer of any employee in their respective depart- ments. We find that the, they are supervisors as defined in the Act and shall exclude them from the unit. Dyer: The dyer 9 is a qualified chemist and is in charge of the dye- ing department. The only other employees in this department are two kettle hands. It appears that he not only closely supervises kettle hands but also has effectively recommended the removal from the de- partment or discharge of such employees. We find that the dyer is a supervisor within the meaning of the Act, and shall, accordingly, ex- clude him from the unit hereinafter found appropriate. 6 See Matter of W. W. Holmes, et at., 83 N . L. R. B. 49 ; Matter of Smith-Rice Mill, Inc., et al ., 83 N. L. R. B. 380; Matter of Clarksburg Paper Company, 80 N. L. R. B. 1304. Individuals falling within this category are John Wolford, treasurer of Failor ; John Failor, president of Failor ; Edward Jordan, president of Jordan ; Thomas C . Reynolds, president of Reynolds; and Harold Ellis, officer of H & H, executive assistant of Victor, and son of Morris Ellis, president of Victor. s Jean Eckard, forelady - of the finishing department , and Eva Warden, forelady of the seamless department. Otto Kern. 867351-50-vol. 86-1.4 198 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Fixers: The two fixers in the full-fashioned department,10 the looper fixer in the looping and seaming department," and the fixer in the seamless department,12 perform the duties typical of employees in the category. They are responsible to management for the operations of their respective departments on their respective shifts, and direct and discipline employees in such departments. In accordance with our usual practice, we find that the fixers are supervisors within the mean- ing of the Act.13 We shall, accordingly, exclude them from the unit. The assistant fixer 14 in the seamless department is learning the skills of fixing. He works the same shift as the-fixer and in the fixer's absence takes over repair of the knitting machines.. He exercises no control over the employees on the shift even in the absence of the fixer. As it appears that the assistant fixer has no supervisory authority, we shall include him in the unit " We find that all production and maintenance employees at the Ha- gerstown, Maryland, mill of the Employer including knitters 18 but excluding executives and corporate officers, foremen, foreladies, the dyer, fixers, office clerical employees, professional employees, watch- men, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the mean- ing of Section 9 (b) of the Act. DIRECTION OF ELECTION As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining with the Employer, an election by secret ballot shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later than 60 days from the date of this Direction; under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Region in which this case was heard, and subject to Sections 203.61 and 203.62 of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations, among the employees in the unit found appropriate in paragraph numbered 4, above, who were employed during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of this Direction of Election, including employees who did not 11 George Eakle and Kenneth Hartle are classified by the Employer as machinists. How- ever, it appears from the record that they are actually machine fixers on separate,ahifts in the full-fashioned department. - 11 Earle Ward , classified as looper fixer. 12 John Guyer, classified as machine fixer. 13 Matter of Lykens Hosiery Mills, Inc., 82 N. L. R. B. 981 ; Matter of Adams-Milli8 Cor- poration, 83 N. L. R. B. 1128, and cases cited therein. 14 Paul Rudisill, classified as machine fixer. • 15 Matter. of Gurney Manufacturing Company, et al., 72 N. L. R. B. 311. 16 In view of the determination set forth in paragraph numbered 1,. supra, employees of the five corporations are regarded collectively as employees of the Employer. The em- ployees operating the knitting machines of the four corporations are, therefore, Included In the unit. VICTOR HOSIERY CORPORATION 199 work during said pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation or temporarily laid off, but excluding those employees who have since quit or been discharged for cause and have not been rehired or re- instated prior to the date of the election, and also excluding employees on strike who are not entitled to reinstatement, to determine whether or not they desire to be represented, for purposes of collective bar- gaining, by American Federation of Hosiery Workers.