No Mend Hosiery, Inc.

In the Matter of No MEND HOSIERY, INCORPORATED,1 EMPLOYER and AMERICAN FEDERATION OF HOSIERY WORKERS, CIO, PETITIONER Case No. 4-R-2118.-Decided August 15,1946 Messrs. Geoffrey J. Cunniff and Carl H. Anderson, of Philadelphia, Pa., for the Employer. Mr. Miles H. Cunningham , of Philadelphia , Pa., for Anne Murka- vich, of Reading, Pa., for the Petitioner. Mr. Emil C: Farkas, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at Lebanon, Pennsylvania, on June 18, 1946, before John H. Garver, Trial Exam- iner. The Trial Examiner's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. At the hearing the Em- ployer moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that no evidence was presented to show that the Petitioner represents a substantial number of employees in the unit alleged to be appropriate. The Trial Ex- aminer referred this motion to the Board. For reasons stated in the .Jennings case,2 the motion is hereby denied. All parties were afforded opportunity to file briefs with the Board. Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations Board makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER No Mend Hosiery, Incorporated, is a Pennsylvania corporation engaged in the manufacture of full fashioned women's hosiery at its plant in Lebanon, Pennsylvania. During the year 1945, the Employer purchased raw materials, consisting principally of yarn, valued in 1 The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing. Matter of O. D. Jennings & Company, 68 N. L. R. B. 516. See also Matter of Nash Motors Division of Nash-Keivinator Sales Corporation (Philadelphia Zone ), 68 N. L. R. B. 651. 70 N. L. R. B., No. 4. 37 38 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD excess of $100,000, approximately 70 percent of which was purchased outside the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. During the same period, the Employer manufactured finished products valued in excess of $200,000, approximately 90 percent of which was shipped outside the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The Employer' admits and we find that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.. II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED The Petitioner is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations claiming to represent employees of the Employer. III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION The Employer refuses to recognize the Petitioner as the exclusive bargaining representative of employees of the Employer until the Petitioner has been certified by the Board in an appropriate unit. We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning the representation of employees of the Employer, within the meaning of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of, the Act. IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT The Employer and i he Petitioner agree that a unit comprising all production and maintenance employees, including watchmen, regular part-time employees, electricians, stock boys and instructresses, but excluding clerical and office employees, trainees intended for employ- men at other plants of the Employer, foremen, fixers, foreladies, and all other supervisory employees, is appropriate. They are riot in agree- ment, however, with respect, to relief employees, whom the Petitioner seeks to include and the Employer desires to exclude, and with respect to floorgirls and the quality control employee, whom the Petitioner would exclude and the Employer would include. Relief Employees: These persons are former employees of the Em- ployer who are called to work only in the absence of a regular employee of when an emergency arises. They receive no compensation unless they actually work, are not carried on the Employers' regular pay roll, and have no expectancy of permanent employment. Since they work irregularly, on many occasions, apparently, for very brief periods, we are of the opinion that relief employees are casual workers who do not have a sufficient interest in- terms and conditions of employment to warrant their inclusion in the unit.' ' See Matter of Gulf Refining Company (Tulsa Pipe Line Davisaon ), 64 N. L. R. B. 304. NO MEND HOSIERY, INCORPORATED 39 Floorgirls: These women assist in maintaining the flow of pro- duction by distributing bundles of hosiery to employees engaged in various phases of the manufacturing process. They do not have the authority to hire, discharge, or discipline employees, or effectively recommend such action. The testimony reveals that floorgirls, for the most part, earn less than piece-workers, that they are not selected with any regard for their ability to direct others, and that there is a group of higher paid "instructresses" whom both the Employer and the Petitioner agree should be included in the unit. It is our opinion that floorgirls are not supervisory employees within the Board's cus- tomary definition of that term, and we shall, therefore, include them in the unit. Quality Control Employee: The chief duty of this employee con- sists of "counting the course per inch set up on the leggin machine," so that an identical stitch may be obtained when the leg portion of the stocking is transferred to a footing machine. He is a highly trained employee who has a guaranteed weekly income regardless of the number of hours he may work. There appears to be little community of interest between this specially skilled worker and the ordinary pro- duction and maintenance employees. We shall, consequently, exclude him from the unit. We find that all production and maintenance employees of the Employer's Lebanon, Pennsylvania, plant, including watchmen, reg- ular part-time employees, electricians, stock boys, floorgirls, and in- structresses, but excluding clerical and office employees, trainees intended for employment at other plants of the Employer, relief em- ployees, quality control employee, foremen, fixers, foreladies, and all other supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, dis- charge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of employ- ees, or effectively recommend such action, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Sec- tion 9 (b) of the Act. DIRECTION OF ELECTION As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the purpose of collective bargaining with No Mend Hosiery, Incorporated, Lebanon, Pennsylvania, an election by secret ballot shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later than thirty (30) days from the date of this Direction, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Fourth Region, acting in this matter as agent for the National Labor Relations Board, and subject to Article III, Sections 10 and 11, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations- Series 3, as amended, among the employees in the unit found appro- 40 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD priate.in Section IV, above, who were employed during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of this Direction, including employees who did not work during said pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation or temporarily laid off, and including employees ,in the armed forces of the United States who present themselves in person at the polls, 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, to determine whether or not they desire to be represented by American Federation of- Hosiery Workers, CIO, for the purposes of collective bargaining. 11