Mutual Rough Hat Co.

In the Matter of MUTUAL ROUGH HAT COMPANY, EMPLOYER and UNITED HATTERS, CAP & MILLINERY WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, AFL, PETITIONER Case No. 2-RC-1303.-Decided October 10, 1949 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before Chester L. Migden, 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 [Chairman Herzog and Members :Houston and Gray]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations 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 to represent a unit limited to the Em- ployer's toners, hardeners, wetters-down, stumpers, sizers, "A" ma- chine operators and stackers, multi-machine operators, stiffeners, stretchers, blockers, and pouncers. The Petitioner would exclude the blowing-room employees, feeders, passers, color-room employees, whizzer-out employees, maintenance employees, guards, and super- visors. The Employer contends that because of the integrated opera- tions in its plant, only a unit of all production and maintenance employees is appropriate. There is no history of collective bargain- ing in the Employer's plant. The Employer is engaged in the manufacture of hat bodies. All of its production operations with the exception of the blowing-room, are'performed in one large room on the main floor of the plant.'- The I The location of the blowing-room on a separate floor was necessitated by space limita- tions on the main floor. 86 N. L. R. B., No. 60. 440 MUTUAL ROUGH HAT COMPANY 44" employees in each operation are located adjacent to the employees in the prior and succeeding operation in the production process. The employees in the blowing-room work in a room directly above the next operation, the feeders. There are approximately 76 production . employees and 1 maintenance employee in the plant. The production process starts in the blowing-room, where the correct grades of fur are first mixed by hand, and then put through a mixing machine. The mixed fur is processed through a blowing ma- chine which cleans and packages the fur for use by the feeders. The feeders weigh predetermined amounts of fur for each hat, and spread it on a moving apron which carries the fur to the toners. The toners place the fur on a stainless steel perforated cone, under which there is suction which makes the fur particles adhere to the cone. This is covered with cloths and a cover, and immersed in a vat of water. The hats are piled up for the hardener, who wraps them in cloths and squeezes out the excess water. He kneads the hats by hand to shrink them in all dimensions. The hats go through a second shrinking process in the wetting room. The wetting-down is done by machine to a predetermined size for width and depth. After the wetting-down, the hats are inspected by the passer for defects. The stumper does the next shrinking operation. This is similar to wetting-down, but it is done on a different type of machine which puts a little pressure on the hats.2 The hats are again shrunk by the "A" machine operators, who feed the hats in the machine on a moving apron. The hats are clock timed in the machine. When the hats are shrunk to a given size, the "A" machine stackers straighten out and croze the hats. The hats are then dyed in the color room in a dye bath. After the hats are properly colored, they are shrunk again by the multi-roller operators. Their work is similar to that of the "A" machine operators, but is done on a differently built machine. After this shrinking, the hats are straightened out and stacked by the multi-roller operators. The next shrinking is done by the sizers on the same machine that is used for stumping. The final shrinking of the hats is done by the cone blockers. They heat the hats in a kettle and block them on a cone blocking machine to a given size. The hats are whizzed-out, a process by which the water is removed through an extracting machine. After the water is extracted, the hats are hung upon pegs in the drying room to dry. When dry, the stiffeners put the hats in a machine which coats them with shellac. After the hats are stiffened, stretchers im- merse them in hot water and stretch them out of the cone shape on a multi-fingered machine. Blockers heat the hats in a kettle and block them into their finished shape on a blocking machine. The hats are immersed in cold water so that they will retain their shape. The hats 2 This is the first operation in which the hats receive any pressure. 442 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD are again whizzed out individually on a slightly different machine than used in the first whizzing-out process. The pouncers then remove all excess hair from the hats with fine sandpaper, both by hand and machine. A dusting machine removes all fine dust from the hats. When this operation is completed, the hats are packed by the pouncers for shipment. The Employer has no apprenticeship program. The record does not show how much training or experience in their work the employees in the prc,posed unit have had. All employees, except the maintenance engineer, work a maximum of 40 hours a week. The day shift employ- ees report for work at 7: 30 a. m.' The night shift employees start to work at 3: 30 p. M.4 All employees whom the Petitioner would exclude from the unit are hourly paid employees. Those whom it would include, except for the stumpers and stiffeners, are piece- workers. The average hourly earnings for the,employees in the re- quested unit range from $1 to $4, while that for the employees whom the Petitioner would exclude is from 80 cents to $1.80. The em- ployees sought by the Petitioner are not separately supervised, but work under the same supervision as the employees it does not seek to represent.5 There is little interchange of employees. When neces- sary, however, the whizzer-out employees assist the pouncers and stackers, and the cone blocker does some sizing. The maintenance man maintains and repairs all machines that are used in the productive process. He also takes care of the oil-fed automatic boiler which supplies steam to the entire plant. The Petitioner contends that the pattern of bargaining in the hat body industry establishes the appropriateness of a separate unit of the employees it seeks to represent, and asserts that it has never represented or bargained for any employees in the disputed categories. We find no merit in this contention. The Board has in fact found appropriate units of all production employees in the hat industry.' 'The maintenance engineer works about 70 hours a week. He reports to work at 4 a. in., and works until 4 p. in. 5 There are some blowing-room employees, feeders, coners, hardeners, "A" machine op- erators, sizers, blockers, and pouncers who work on the night shift. The Employer's secretary-treasurer directly supervises the blowing-room employees, color room employees, the maintenance man, and stiffeners, in addition to over-all super- vision of the plant. The Employer's president supervises the wetters-down, the passers, whizzer-out employees, sizers, stretchers, and blockers. The vice president supervises the pouncers. Joseph Sauer, a foreman, supervises feeders, coners and hardeners. Patrick Broda, a foreman, supervises "A" machine operators and sizers. 6In Matter of the Beebe Corp., 59 N. L. R. B. 538, and in Matter of H. McLachlan & Co., 32 N. L. it. B. 639, this same Petitioner requested, units of all production employees. The Board found such units appropriate, excluding the maintenance employees because they were ineligible to membership in the union. These findings were based primarily upon the extent of organization, a factor which may no longer be considered controlling under Section 9 (c) (5) of the amended Act. In Matter of Mohawk Hat Company, 2-RC- 529, a consent election was held on August 11, 1948, in which the Petitioner participated. The unit was composed of all production, maintenance, shipping, and receiving employees. MUTUAL ROUGH HAT COMPANY 443 Neither the Petitioner's alleged jurisdictional limitations on mem- bership, nor the extent of its organizational activities are, standing alone, proper determinants of a bargaining unit.. We find nothing in the record to indicate that the employees in the unit sought by Petitioner are a group of recognized craftsmen, or that a special community of interest distinguishes them from other pro- duction and maintenance employees." The employees in the depart- ments sought by the Petitioner are unrelated in themselves, but are integral parts of the Employer's production process. The requested unit is a heterogeneous group of certain production employees whose hours of employment and working conditions are the same as those of other production employees whom the Petitioner would arbitrarily exclude. In view of the integrated operations at the Employer's plant, the fact that the employees in the proposed unit are not separately super- vised, and all the evidence presented in this case, we are of the opinion that the interests of the employees whom the Petitioner seeks to represent are not sufficiently severable and distinct from those of the Employer's other production and maintenance employees to warrant establishing them as a separate unit.9 We find that the unit re- quested by the Petitioner is inappropriate for collective bargaining purposes, and that only a plant-wide production and maintenance unit is appropriate?'0 While such unit is more comprehensive than that sought by the Petitioner, the record shows that the Petitioner has an adequate showing of interest in this larger unit. We shall, therefore, treat the petition as one requesting an alternative production and maintenance unit.. 4 Matter of Cannel & Chaffin, Inc., 85 N . L. R. B. 887 ; Matter of Iowa Packing Company, 85 N. L. R . B. 1080 ; Matter of Dey Brothers & Co., 85 N. L. R. B . 689. Matter of Butte Motors, 85 N. L . R. B. 1336; Matter of Beatrice Foods Company, 84 N. L. R. B. 512. 8 Assuming, as the Petitioner contends , that jobs in the classifications sought by the Petitioner are usually filled by craftsmen in the hat industry , there is no evidence in the record in this case to show ' that these employees have the skills or training of craftsmen. The most that can be said is that they are more skilled than those employees whom the Petitioner seeks to exclude from the unit. Moreover, in about 1937, the Petitioner dis- continued its requirement that an apprenticeship be served before a person could secure a position in an organized shop. 8 The Board has consistently refused to find appropriate for collective bargaining pur- poses a unit composed of a portion of production employees who are not craftsmen. Matter of A. J. Sirus Products Corporation of Virginia, 83 N. L. R. B . 99. Liberty Hosiery Mills, Inc., 75 N. L. R. B. 340. The fact that the employees in the requested unit are more skilled than the other employees in the plant is no reason to give them separate treatment . Cf. Matter of Swift and Company, 82 N. L. R. B. 994; Matter of Ray- bestos Division of the Raybestos-Manhattan Company, Inc., 74 N. L. R. B. 1321. 10'In the absence of a cogent reason for separating them, the Board customarily includes maintenance employees in a unit with production employees. Matter of Coca-Cola Bottling Company of Tulsa, Oklahoma, 85 N. L. R . B. 606 ; Matter of Boland Manufacturing Company, 83 N. L. R. B. 1254 ; Matter of Goodall Company, 80 N. L. R . B. 562. 444 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The Employer would include, and the Petitioner exclude, the fol- lowing employees : The Passer: The passer examines all hats for defects after the wetting-down operational All defective hats are given to the foreman of the wetting-down room. The foreman decides whether the defect was caused by the employee or by the machine, and what should be done. The passer makes no decisions as to the defective hats. If the foreman decides the defect is the fault of the employee, he discusses the matter with the employee concerned. The rejection of hats by the passer does not cause a loss of earnings, inasmuch as employees are paid for rejects. The passer has no authority to discipline, hire or discharge, or effectively recommend a change in status of any em- ployee. He is an hourly paid employee, who punches the time clock as do all non-supervisory employees 12 We have held that an inspector's authority to reject or to report defective work is not in itself sufficient to constitute supervisory authority.13 We find that the passer is not a supervisor, and shall include him in the unit. Stockholders: There are 3 production employees who are stock- holders in the corporation. Two of them are also directors 14 Each owns 2 shares of stock, as do the other 12 stockholders in the corpora- tion.15 The 3 employees do not receive any additional monies beyond their compensation as production employees. Nor do they receive any dividends, inasmuch as all profits are reinvested in the business. The officers of the corporation have complete authority, in accord- ance with the corporate bylaws; to fix prices and production methods, and to determine all company policies, including the negotiation and signing of collective bargaining agreements. None of the other stock- holders participates in management conferences or determines man- agement policy. It is clear that these three employees have no voice in the formula- tion and determination of corporate policy. Mere stock ownership, in itself, is insufficient to exclude an employee, otherwise eligible, from an appropriate bargaining unit."' We shall, therefore, include Meltzer, Kraiger and Skandera in the unit. 11 The passers duties end at this point. The hats are not inspected again until they are finished. At this time they are checked by the Employer 's secretary-treasurer and an office employee. u None of the supervisors punch the time clock. ' Matter o f Plywood-Plastics Corporation, 85 N. L. It. B. 265; Matter of Wm. P. McDonald Corporation, 83 N. L . It. B. 427. 14 They are Julius Meltzer, a stumper , and Geza Kralger and Daniel Skandera, stiffeners. Although Meltzer and Kralger are also directors , their position as such appears to be merely nominal in order to comply with a provision of the law requiring a Board of Directoro to be elected and their names filed every year . The Board of Directors do-not participate in management affairs. v Each of the 15 stockholders contributed $200 to start the business in 1936. 16 Matter of Muskogee Dairy Products Co., 85 N. L. It. B. 520; Matter of Alderwood Products Corporation, 81 N. L. It. B. 136. MUTUAL ROUGH HAT COMPANY 445 We find that all production and maintenance employees, including blowing room employees, feeders, passers, color-room employees, whizzer-out employees, and maintenance employees, but excluding all office and clerical employees, guards, and supervisors, constitute a unit appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. DIRECTION OF ELECTION 17 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 30 days from the date of this Direction, under the direction and super- vision 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 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 rein- stated 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 bargain- ing, by United Hatters, Cap & Millinery Workers International Union, AFL. 17 If the Petitioner does not wish to participate in an election for the unit herein found appropriate, it may withdraw its petition filed in this proceeding upon notice to that effect given to the Regional Director in writing, within 10 days from the date of the Direction of Election herein.