Sol Baum and Julie Baum

In the Matter Of SOL BAUM AND JULIE BAUM, A CO-PARTNERSHIP,) EMPLOYER and Los ANGELES CLOAK JOINT BOARD, INTERNATIONAL LADIES GARMENT WORKERS UNION, AFL, PETITIONER Case No. 21-RC-1059.-Decided October 6, 1950 DECISION AND ORDER Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National La- bor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Platonia Kaldes, hear- ing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 2. The labor organization involved claims to represent employees of the Employer. 3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the represen- tation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, for the following reasons: The Employer is a women's garment manufacturer, engaged at Los Angeles, California, in producing dresses,2 and unlined jackets with accompanying skirts, which it sells under the trade names of Twen- tieth Century Frocks, Miss Hollywood, Jr., and Dorothy Lamour Fashions. The employees engaged in producing these garments, of whom there are approximately 100, are carried on a payroll in the name of Twentieth Century Frocks and are paid from a bank ac- count in that name. Since May or June 1949, the Employer has also manufactured, on the same premises, lined jackets with accompanying skirts which it sells under the trade name of Monroe Lloyd.' Em- ployees engaged in the production of these garments, of whom there are approximately 30, are carried on a payroll in the name of Twentieth 'The petition originally stated the name of the Employer as Twentieth Century Frocks, Inc.-Monroe Lloyd Division . It was amended at the hearing to conform with the record showing as to the Employer' s operation. 2 Some with accompanying unlined jackets. 2 These two phases of the Employer 's operations are hereinafter referred to respectively as Monroe Lloyd and Twentieth Century. 91 NLRB No. 125. 708 SOL BAUM AND JULIE BAUM 709 Century Frocks-Monroe Lloyd Division, and are paid from a bank account in the name of Monroe Lloyd.' The Petitioner, whose charter limits its jurisdiction to workers en- gaged in the production of women's suits, seeks a unit limited to em- ployees engaged in making Monroe Lloyd garments, which it asserts are the only suits produced by the Employer.' It asserts that produc- tion of suits is a branch of the women's apparel industry separate from the production of dresses, that different skills are involved, and that such workers have traditionally been represented separately. The Employer asserts that its operation is a single integrated one, and that all its production employees, whether on the Twentieth Cen- tury or Monroe Lloyd payroll, are engaged in producing related types of garments calling for the same skills. It contends that only a single unit comprising all its production workers can be appropriate to its type of operation. There is no previous history of collective bargain- ing in the Employer's establishment. The unit sought comprises employees classified as sewing machine operators, lining operators, lining setters, finishers, special machine •operators, hand pressers, machine pressers, floor girls, and such cut- ters as may be employed exclusively in cutting Monroe Lloyd gar- ments. There are employees in all these classifications, with the exception of lining makers and lining setters, on the Twentieth Cen- tury payrolls The evidence shows that there are no cutters engaged exclusively in cutting garments sold under the Monroe Lloyd name. .All cutters cut both Monroe Lloyd and Twentieth Century garments and their names appear only on the Twentieth Century payroll. Employees engaged in making Monroe Lloyd garments work in the same building and on the same floor as the Employer's other em- ployees, in an area separated only by partitions and a hall on either .side. They share the same lunchroom and other facilities, but punch a separate time clock. They are under the general supervision of a. foreman hired at the inception of the Monroe Lloyd operation, who is carried on the Monroe Lloyd payroll as a patternmaker. Em- ployes on the Twentieth Century payroll are under the supervision of a forelady who has been with the Employer for many years. 4 The Employer asserts that these separate payrolls and bank accounts are maintained merely for cost accounting purposes. After various expenses are paid, the money remaining in the accounts is commingled with other partnership money in a single account. The -same office help keeps all records of the Employer 's operations. ' The Petitioner would classify all garments made by employees on the so-called Twentieth Century payroll as either 1- or 2-piece dresses. . It cites the definition of a suit, found in the maximum price regulations of the Office of Price Administration , as a lined jacket with accompanying skirt. 6 There are likewise only two classifications on the Twentieth Century payroll peculiar to dressmaking which do not exist in the Monroe Lloyd operation. 710 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD All materials are stored in the Twentieth Century area and all cutting was done there until October 1949, when one cutting table was moved into the Monroe Lloyd area.7 All sorting, bundling, and tick- eting for both branches of the Employer's business are done exclusively by Twentieth Century employees in the Twentieth Century floor area. Single showrooms are maintained, and all clerical services and ship- ping are handled by Twentieth Century employees. Both lines of garments are sold by the same salesmen. Thus the Monroe Lloyd branch of the Employer's business is dependent upon the Twentieth Century branch for a number of essential services. Almost all garments manufactured by the Employer, whether by Twentieth Century or by Monroe Lloyd employees, are of rayon or similar light materials and all are sold in the same price range. The record establishes conclusively that for many years before the incep- tion of the Monroe Lloyd operation, employees were frequently shifted from the production of dresses to production of two-piece "dressmaker suits" as marked demands veered from dresses to suits or vice versa. Although the Petitioner contends that it requires many months of retraining for an operator experienced only in dresses to shift to the production of suits, it did not successfully controvert the Employer's testimony that, over a long period of years, shifts had been made among workers on the differing types of garments produced by the Employer.s A number of employees, principally engaged as dressmakers, testified that they had been able to make such shifts with no greater difficulty than in shifting from the pro- duction of one style of dress to another.9 There has been little or no interchange of workers between Twentieth Century and Monroe Lloyd in the short period under consideration, and a minimum inter- change in the assignment of garments to one side or the other. How- ever, the Employer testified that in setting up the Monroe Lloyd operation it did not intend to abandon its established practice of adjusting the ratio of production of the two types of garments to 7 For the purposes of determining the character of Monroe Lloyd operations the period from June 1949 , when Monroe Lloyd began actual production , until November 1949, is regarded as the representative period. Asa strike began in November 1949 and was still in progress at the time of the hearing in this case , operations after November 1949 cannot be regarded as typical. 8 The Monroe Lloyd suits that the Employer is now engaged in making, and which it likewise characterizes as "dressmaker suits, " are not precision tailored garments. Many of them for example, do not have inset sleeves or interfacings such as are commonly found in more elaborately tailored suits. 9 The Petitioner emphasizes the fact that Monroe Lloyd suits have linings and that such two-piece garments as are now produced by Twentieth Century do not . However, among the dressmaker employees testifying , there were several who had shifted from dresses to suits with lined jackets at a time when Twentieth Century was producing in very con- siderable volume several lines of suits with such jackets. SOL BAUM ,AND JULIE BAUM 711 meet varying market demand. In fact the Employer contends that this is vital to the successful operation of his entire business. The Employer does not dispute the Petitioner's contention that employees engaged in producing suits have traditionally been repre- sented separately from those engaged in producing dresses. It asserts, however, that the historic demarcation between the two groups of workers is due to the fact that, in the past, employers universally have specialized in the production of one type of garment or another. This specialization arose at a time when there were great technological differences in the production of the two types of garments. Little difference now exists in operations such as the Employer's where the same materials are used for both types of garments, there is little or no difference in the machines used, and no precision tailored suits are made. In view of the integration of the Employer's operations, the funda- mental similarity in kind and degree of employee skills in the two branches of the Employer's business, and in the absence of any clear showing of an established pattern of separate bargaining among firms making similar products in the Los Angeles area, we find that a separate unit of employees in the Employer's Monroe Lloyd division is not appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining. We shall therefore dismiss the petition. ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition herein be and it hereby is, dismissed. ° CHAIRMAN HERZOG and MEMBER STYLES, dissenting : The unit sought by the Petitioner conforms to the established indus- try pattern. Factors that we have held prerequisite to a separate de- partmental unit are also present. The employees of the Employer's Monroe Lloyd division constitute a homogeneous and readily identi- fiable group. They are separately supervised, have different working hours and rates of pay, there is little or no interchange with other employees, and a substantial degree of physical separation exists. There is scant evidence in the record to support the Employer's con- tention that, because of the high incidence of manufacturers employ- ing a single group of operators in the production of both suits and dresses, there is absent in Los Angeles any established pattern of separate representation of employees engaged in making women's suits 11 On the other hand, it is clear that in setting up its Monroe 11 The only evidence to this effect consists of the testimony of a single manufacturer, who testified that in his own establishment he produced suits and dresses , using the same 712 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Lloyd operation, the Employer itself has followed the traditional Nation-wide pattern of manufacturing in the women's coat and suit industry. The Employer placed its Monroe Lloyd operations in a separate division, in charge of a man whose experience had been almost exclusively with coat and suit establishments. In hiring employees for the Monroe Lloyd operation, employees were sought who had coat and suit experience, and no dressmaker employees were trans- ferred to the new operation. Piece-rates on Monroe Lloyd garments were set at a higher rate than on Twentieth Century garments, thus conforming to a differential that has always existed between these two trades. In these circumstances, we would find appropriate the unit sought, thus recognizing the separate character of the operation and following the historic demarcation between the two trades 12 operators for both. The Petitioner, on the other hand presented testimony that it repre- sents the suit workers in at lease three Los Angeles establihhments where dresses are also produced on the same premises, and that the dress operators are either unrepresented or separately represented, a practice which the Employer concedes is always followed in New York City when an employer 's operation is a mixed one. At least one of these establish- ments manufactures suits and dresses selling in a lower price line than the Employer's. 12 The May Department Stores, Inc., 50 NLRB 669; Desmond's, Inc., 68 NLRB 379.