American Twine and Fabric Corp.

In the Matter of AMERICAN TWINE AND FABRIC CORPORATION, EMPLOYER and TEXTILE WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA (CIO), PETITIONER Case No. 1-R-3111.-Decided August 23,1946 Hughes & Burns, by Mr. Stanley M. Burns,-of Dover, N. H., for the Employer. Messrs. J. Harold Daoust and Frank L. Diehard, of Nashua, N. H., 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 Dover, New Hampshire, on June 28, 1946, before John W. Coddaire, Jr., Trial Examiner. The Trial Examiner's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations Board makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER American Twine and Fabric Corporation, a New Hampshire cor- poration, maintaining its offices at Portsmouth, New Hampshire, is engaged in the manufacture of twine and fabrics at its only plant located in Salmon Falls, New Hampshire. The principal raw ma- terial used by the Employer is paper, which is used in the manu- facture of seat covers and other paper fabric products. During the year 1945, in excess of 50 percent of the raw materials used by the Employer was shipped to it from points outside the State of New Hampshire. During the same period, manufactured products sold by the Employer exceeded $100,000 in value, more than 50 percent of which was shipped to points outside the State of New Hampshire. The Employer admits and we find that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. 70 N. L. B. B., No. 29. 283 284 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD H. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED The Petitioner is a labor organization affiliated with 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 mean- ing of Section 9 (c) of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT The Petitioner seeks a unit of all production and maintenance em- ployees, excluding office and clerical employees, executives, the plant manager, the assistant to the plant manager, the machinist, foreman, and any other supervisory personnel. Contrary to the position of the petitioner, the Employer asserts that mill maintenance employees should be excluded from the unit because the nature of their work and the hours of their employment allegedly differ substantially from those of the regular production-workers. Also in opposition to the desires of the Petitioner, the Employer contends that two employees in the machine maintenance crew, who have no formal title, but who act in the capacity of assistant foremen-instructors, should be excluded from the unit on the ground that they are supervisory employees. There are nine persons classified as mill maintenance employees. Their duties consist of keeping the mill property and mill grounds in proper condition. They are responsible for maintaining the plumb- ing, heating, and electrical systems, performing all painting and carpentry work, and moving and realigning machinery. The record indicates that these employees report for work at the same time that regular production workers do, and are not actually required to work other than a regular shift unless they are willing to do so. On occa sions they are called upon to work nights or Sundays, when the plant is not in operation, for the purpose of moving, installing, or realigning machinery. Like the production employees, they perform manual la- bor. Moreover, their interests are related to those of production em- I Pointing out that no local has been chartered to act for the employees involved herein, the Employer contends that the Petitioner may not itself validly represent these workers. But this contention is clearly without merit inasmuch as the Petitioner is a labor organi- zation within the meaning of the Act. AMERICAN TWINE AND FABRIC CORPORATION 285 ployees. In view of the foregoing facts, and since no cogent reason ap- pears for the separation of the mill maintenance employees, we- shall follow our usual policy of including maintenance and production employees in one bargaining Unit .2 e The two assistant foremen-instructors receive about 10 to 15 percent more in salary than other operators, and instruct and train new opera- tors hired for work in various departments. They are responsible for loom fixing and other machine repair work. They have general super- vision over all employees whom they train and instruct, and have the right to recommend the discharge of any of these employees in the event their work is not satisfactory. These recommendations are accorded considerable weight by the plant manager, who has the authority to take final action. We believe that these employees possess sufficient indicia of supervisory authority to warrant their exclusion from the unit. We find that all production and maintenance employees of the Employer's Salmon Falls, New Hampshire, plant, excluding office and clerical employees, executives, the plant manager, the assistant to plant manager, the machinist, foremen, assistant foremen-instructors, and all other supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote,- discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of em- ployees, or effectively recommend such action, constitute a unit ap- propriate for the purposes of collective bargaining with the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. DIRECTION OF ELECTION As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining with American Twine and Fabric Corporation, Salmon Falls, New Hampshire, 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 First Region, acting in this matter as agent for the National Labor Relations Board, and sub- ject to Article III, Sections 10 and 11, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 3, as amended, among the em- ployees in the unit found appropriate 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 2 Matter of Gluck Brothers, Inc., 45 N. L. R. B. 1159; Matter of Fogel Refrigerator Com- pany, 61 N. L. R. B. 692. 286 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD those employees who have since quit or been discharged for cause and have not been rehih•ed or reinstated prior to the date of the election, to determine whether or not they desire to be represented by Textile Workers Union of America (CIO), for the purposes of collective bargaining. CHAIRMAN HERZOG took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Direction of Election. O