Dixie Bag & Crate Co.

In the Matter of W. B. BROWN, D/B /A DIXIE BAG & CRATE COMPANY, EMPLOYER and RETAIL, WHOLESALE AND DEPARTMENT STORE UNION7 CIO, PETITIONER Case No. 10-RC-746.-Decided January 20,1950 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before Gilbert Cohen, hearing officer. The hearing officer's ruling 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 Reynolds]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 1. The Employer is engaged in the manufacture of open mesh and cotton bags, and in the wholesaling of tomato crates, market baskets, bags, and other products at its plant in Atlanta, Georgia. During the past year the Employer purchased approximately $61,000 worth of raw materials consisting principally of thread and twine, ink, print- ing plates, paper boxes, new and used market baskets, and tomato crates. Approximately $1,100 of this sum represents purchases from outside the State, and approximately $12,000 worth of purchases were made from companies engaged in interstate commerce. During the same period the Employer's sales totaled approximately $88,000, of which more than $25,000 consisted of the sale of bags which it had manufactured, and approximately $63,000 represented the resale at wholesale of crates, baskets, bags, and other materials which it had purchased. Twenty-two thousand five hundred dollars worth of man- ufactured bags were sold to a customer in Winter Haven, Florida. Approximately $3,500 of the wholesale products were sold to two cus- tomers, one located in Asheville, North Carolina, and the other having places of business both in Atlanta, Georgia, and Chattanooga, Tennes- 88 NLRB No. 67. 248 DIXIE BAG & CRATE COMPANY 249 see. The Employer advertises in trade papers published in New York and Cincinnati, Ohio. We find contrary to the contentions of the Employer, that it is en- gaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Rela- tions Act. 2. The labor organization named below claims to represent 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 following employees of the Employer constitute a unit ap- propriate for- purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. All employees employed at the Employer's plant at 1031 Lee Street, S. W., Atlanta, Georgia, including the local truck driver and the press operator,' but excluding long distance truck drivers, the bookkeeper, outside salesmen, office clericals, guards, and all supervisors as defined in the Act. DIRECTION OF ELECTION As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the pur- poses 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 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 payroll period immediately preceding the date of this Direction of Election, including employees who did not work during said payroll 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 reinstated 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 bargaining, by Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, CIO. 1 The Employer contends that an employee classified as a press operator should be included in the unit. The Union maintains a neutral position as to this employee. The press operator does not have the authority to hire or discharge but may recommend as to his own helper. As it is clear from the record that his recommendations have little effect and that the authority exercised by him is only that normally exercised by skilled workmen over helpers, we find that he is not a supervisor within the meaning of the Act. We shall include him in the unit. General Steel Tank Co., 81 NLRB 1345. 1