Walker County Hosiery Mills

In the Matter Of WALKER COUNTY HOSIERY MILLS, EMPLOYER and C. C. SUMMERLIN, ARVEL PENLEY, R. W. WHITE (INDIVIDUALS), PETITIONERS and AMERICAN FEDERATION OF HOSIERY WORKERS, UNION Case No. 10-RD-52 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION August 28, 1950 Upon a decertification petition duly filed, a hearing was held on October 13, 1949, before Frank E. Hamilton, Jr., hearing officer. On December 19, 1949, the Board issued a Decision and Order in the above-entitled proceeding, dismissing the petition on the ground that the Employer was about to cease doing business and to dissolve its corporate entity. Thereafter, the Employer and the Petitioners filed motions for rehearing on the ground that the Employer had resumed operations and its stockholders had rescinded the resolution to dissolve the corporation. On January 6, 1950, the Board issued an order reopening the record and remanding the proceeding to the Regional Director for further hearing. Accordingly, a further hearing was held before Charles M. Paschal, Jr., 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 the same three-member panel which issued the Decision and Order herein [Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Murdock]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board makes these supple- mental findings : 1. The Petitioner, representing employees of the Employer, asserts that the Union is no longer the representative of the employees of the Employer, as defined by Section 9 (a) of the amended Act. , The hearing officer denied the Union 's motion to continue the hearing until charges then pending in Case No . 10-CA-939 had been investigated, but referred to the Board that part of the motion relating to subsequent proceedings . As the charges have recently been dismissed , however, they no longer present an obstacle to any portion of this proceeding. 91 NLRB No. 7. 8 WALKER COUNTY HOSIERY MILLS 9 The Union, a labor organization certified by the Board in 1944 as bargaining representative of the employees involved herein 2 claims to represent employees of the Employer. 2. The record at the reopened hearing shows that the Employer, although it disposed of certain of its knitting machines, never took the necessary legal steps to have its corporate charter rescinded. Indeed, in the latter part of November 1949, shortly before our De- cision and Order herein, the Employer began to recall its laid-off employees, and on November 28, 1949, the shareholders of the cor- poration resolved to rescind the August 2, 1949, resolution to liquidate the corporation and authorized the corporation's officers to continue operations. Since that date, the number of employees on the payroll has steadily increased. At the time of the reopened hearing there were 239 employees on the payroll as compared to 7 at the time of the original hearing. Prior to the cessation'of operations there were 330 employees. The instant record, however, indicates that there is no present prospect of increasing the current level of employment. Under these circumstances, we find that a question affecting com- merce 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.3 4. We find, in accordance with the stipulation of the parties at the original hearing, that all production and maintenance employees at the Employer's LaFayette, Georgia, mill, excluding clerical employees, guards, and supervisors, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this volume.] 2 As indicated in the Decision and Order herein , the contract between the Employer and the Union covering the employees involved was terminated in accordance with its terms in July 1949. 3 We find no merit in the Union's contention that the petition must be dismissed on the grounds that it is obsolete. As there was no showing by the Union that the Petitioners in filing the petition contemplated any evasion of the Act or indulged in any subterfuge, we likewise deny the Union 's motion to dismiss the petition on the ground that the Peti- tioners were fronting for the Employer.