Lanett Bleachery and Dye Works

In the Matter of LANETT BLEACHERY AND DYE WoRlis, EMPLOYER and FEDERATION OF DYERS, FINISHERS , PRINTERS & BLEACHERS OF AMER- ICA, CIO, PETITIONER Case No. 10-R-1937.-Decided October 11, 1946 Mr. Borden Burr, of Birmingham, Ala., and Mr. John A. Simmons, of Lanett, Ala., for the Employer. Cllr. John J. Brownlee, of Atlanta, Ga., and Mr. Ferdinand Silvia, of Charlotte, N. C., for the Petitioner. Mr. Sydney S. Asher, Jr., of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at West Point, Georgia, on August 9 and 10, 1946, before Albert D. 1llaynard, hearing officer. The rulings of the hearing officer made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. The Employer has requested oral argument. The Employer's re- quest is hereby denied inasmuch as the record and briefs, in our opinion, adequately present the issues and positions of the parties. Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations Board makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER Lanett Bleachery and Dye Works is an Alabama corporation en- gaged in the business of bleaching, dyeing, printing, napping, and sanforizing cotton piece goods at its plant in Lanett, Alabama. Dur- ing the year 1945, the Employer purchased in excess of $1,000,000 worth of raw materials, approximately 90 percent of which was shipped to the Employer's plant from points outside the State of Alabama. During the some period, the Employer produced finished products valued in excess of $1,000,000, approximately 90 percent of which was sent to points outside the State. The Employer admits, and we find, that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. 71 N L R. B, No. 42. 317 318 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 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. TIIE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION The Employer has refused to recognize the Petitioner as the ex- clusive bargaining representative of employees of the Employer. 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 Petitioner seeks a unit composed of all production and mainte- nance employees of the Employer, excluding printers, watchmen, guards, clerical employees, timekeepers, laboratory technicians, con- fidential employees, and supervisory employees. The Employer apparently does not object to the composition of the proposed unit but maintains that the unit should include the production and main- tenance employees, not only of the Employer, but also of the so-called "Valley Mills" owned and operated by the West Point Manufacturing Company, hereinafter referred to as West Point. A. The operations of the companies West Point is an Alabama corporation engaged in the manufacture of cotton textiles. Its operations are conducted in seven plants, in five of which textiles are produced 1 in an unfinished state known as "gray goods." These unfinished goods are shipped to the Employer's mill for finishing. When the finishing has been completed, the finished product is in some instances returned to West Point for further processing and delivery to West Point's customers, and in other in- stances is shipped by the Employer directly to West Point's customers at West Point's orders. The Employer is paid a commission by West Point for all of West Point's goods which are processed by it, and West Point retains title to the goods during the processing operations. Approximately 75 percent of the Employer's business consists of finishing goods produced by West Point; the remainder of the Em- ployer's business consists of finishing goods produced by other textile manufacturing concerns. The Employer's mill and the seven plants of West Point are located in an area known as "The Valley." The mill of the Employer is contiguous to one of the mills of West Point. The other mills of West Point are from 2 to 7 miles distant from the Employer's mill. I Of the two remaining plants, one is engaged in the processing and sale of cotton waste, and the other handles certain maintenance and service functions. LANETT BLEACHERY AND DYE WORKS 319 Ever since the incorporation of the Employer, West Point has owned more than 50 percent of the Employer's common stock. At the present time, the same individual is president of both the Employer and West Point. Of the Employer's five officers and nine directors, two officers and four directors are either officers or directors of-West Point. However, the directors of each company hold separate meet- ings, and the directors of one company cannot take effective action with respect to the corporate affairs of the other. In addition to its controlling interest in the Employer, West Point also owns a con- 1rolling interest in the Dixie Cotton Mills at LaGrange, Georgia, and the Chattahoochee Valley Railroad, at West Point, Georgia.2 The Employer maintains an office in its mill, at which its personnel records are kept. In addition, the Employer shares general offices With West Point at West Point, Georgia, approximately 1 mile from the Employer's plaint. The pay rolls of both companies are prepared by West Point's pay roll department, for which service the Employer reimburses West Point. However, the Employer's employees are paid by checks of the Employer, Whereas West Point's employees are paid by West Point checks. Separate records are maintained for each com- pany, and separate profit and loss statements are prepared. Both the Employer and West Point own and operate houses which are rented to their respective employees at cost. However, houses owned by the Employer are rented only to the Employer's employees, and not to employees of West Point. Some of the Employer's job classifications are similar to those occurring in West Point's plants, while others are not. A comparison of the wage rates paid by the two companies to employees employed in similar jobs reveals that the wages paid by the Employer do not necessarily correspond in all instances to those paid by West Point. However, the labor policies of both companies have always been closely integrated. Many of the Employer's employees have previously been employed by West Point.' Life, accident and health insurance planes for the benefit of employees are similar in both companies. The em- ployees of both concerns share medical and recreational facilities, the costs of which are prorated between the companies. B. Past bargaining history and self-organization Neither the Employer nor West Point has ever entered into any collective- bargaining contract with any union. The Petitioner dis- claims any interest in the employees of West Point,' and has organized 2 The Employer does not seek to include the employees of these companies in the unit 3 Previous service with West Point is considered by the Employer in computing the total length of service of employees foi iacaiion pin poses The Petitioner accepts for inembe(Slup only pining 911(1 bleailune employees The employees of West Point are principally textile workers, and are therefore not within the categories accepted by the Petitioner 717734-l7-vol 71 22 320 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD only employees of the Employer. So far as the record reveals, no other union has any membership among employees of any of the "Valley Mills." C. Conclusions West Point and the Employer are separate corporate entities en- gaged in different, though related, operations. In view of this fact and the other evidences of separateness between the two corporations, we are of the opinion that a unit limited to the employees of the Employer is appropriate.' We find that all production and maintenance employees of the Em- ployer, excluding printers, back tenders,° watchmen, guards, clerical employees, laboratory technicians, timekeepers, confidential em- ployees all supervisory employees of the rank of second-hand and above, and all other supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or effectively recommend such action, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the mean- ing of Section 9 (b) of the Act. DIRECTION OF ELECTION As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the pur- poses of collective bargaining with Lanett Bleachery and Dye Works, Lanett, Alabama, an election by secret ballot shrill be conducted as early as possible, but not later than thirty (30) clays from the date of this Direction, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Tenth Region. acting in this matter as agent for the National Labor Relations Board, and subject to Sections 203.55 and 203.56, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations- Series 4, among the employees In the unit found appropriate In Sec- tion IV, above, who were employed during the pay-roll period imme- diately 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 dis- charged 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 repre- sented by Federation of Dyers, Finishers, Printers & Bleachers of America, CIO, for the purposes of collective bargaining. 5 See Matter of Reea,es Sound Laboratories , lee, 00 N L R B 4r.2. and Matter of The AnpciIs Company/, 50 N L R P 1541 Back tenders are , in effect, apprentice printers Second hands are the lowest lank of supers iso,V emplo%ees