Perfection Garment Co.

In the Matter Of PERFECTION GARMENT COMPANY,' EMPLOYER and MARYLAND-VIRGINIA DISTRICT, ILGvVU-AFL, PETITIONER Case No. 5-R-2.537.-Decided January X0,1947 Mr. Harry H. Byrer, of Martinsburg, W. Va., for the Employer. Messrs. Jacob J. Edelman and Irwin Jaffee, and Miss Angela Bain- bace, all of Baltimore, Md., for the Petitioner. Mr. Herbert C. Kane, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a petition duly filed, hearii3g in this case was held at Martins- burg, West Virginia, on October 31,1946, before Karle K. Shawe, hear- ing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.' At the hearing the Employer by an "Answer and Motion" moved to dismiss the proceed- ings on the ground that the Petitioner did not possess sufficient interest to justify holding au election and, if it did, such interest had been pro- cured by fraud. The hearing•officer referred this motion to the Board. The motion is hereby denied. Under present Board practice, the Field Examiner's report on the showing of interest by a petitioning union is not admitted into evidence and is, therefore, not open to attack by an opposing party.' We have frequently explained that authorization cards are an administrative expedient utilized by the Board to enable it to determine for itself with a minimum expenditure of time and ' Name as amended at the hearing. ' At the healing, the Employer protested the action of the hearing officer in questioning its president as to the relationship between it and Perfection Frocks, Inc., which was also named as an employer in the petition, despite the concession of the Employer that it was the employer of the employees involved. In its brief, the Employer contends that this examination by the hearing officer was not made in good faith. We do not agree. The record discloses that until the close of the hearing, when the hearing officer permitted the amendment of the petition herein so as to delete the name of Perfection Frocks, Inc., as an employer, the relationship of Perfection Fiocks, Inc , to the Employer was in issue. It was, therefore, the duty of the hearing officer fully to explore the interest which Per- fection Frocks Inc. might have in the business of the Employer. 8 See Matter of 0. D. Jennings & Company, 68 N. L It. B 516, and cases cited therein. 72 N. L. R. B., No. 39. 210 A PERFECTION GARMENT COMPANY 211 money whether the petitioning or other union has sufficient interest to justify the Board in proceeding with an investigation. Because the cards serve only this limited administrative purpose, the Board does not permit any direct or collateral attack by an opposing party on their validity.. Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations Board makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF TIIE EMPLOYER Perfection Garment Company, a West Virginia corporation, is chiefly engaged in the manufacture of women's dresses. It owns and operates two plants, one at Martinsburg and one at Charles Town, West Virginia. Both plants are involved in the proceeding. Prac- tically all the material used in the manufacturing process is purchased outside the State of Wrest Virginia; practically all of its finished products are shipped 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. II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED The Petitioner is a labor organization affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, 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. 1V. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT The parties agree generally that a unit of all production and main- tenance employees of the Employer at the Martinsburg and Charles Town plants, including shipping department employees, watchmen, firemen and truck drivers, but excluding office clerical and supervisory 0 212 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD employees would be appropriate. They disagree, however, with respect to the inclusion of instructors and learners. Instructors: The Petitioner would exclude and the Employer in- clude the approximately 10 instructors who teach learners how to, operate the machines. Both the instructors and the learners work under the supervision of foremen. The instructors cannot hire or discharge learners. Neither are they expected, as part of their duties, effectively to recommend changes in the status of learners, although they may be asked, in the case of learners whose piece work records indicate a lack of production, to express an opinion as to the adapt- ability of such learners. We find that instructors are not supervisors within the Board's customary definition and we shall, therefore, include them in the unit. Learners: The Petitioner would include and the Employer exclude these employees. There are approximately 20 learners. They are hired for a 480-hour trial period. During this time, they perform the same type of work asregular production employees but under the im- mediate direction of instructors and for a lower rate. Their working conditions are substantially the same as those for permanent employ- ees. More than 50 percent of the learners become permanent employees at the end of their trial period. They are customarily included in production and maintenance units in similar plants in the area. We find that the learners have substantial interests in common with the permanent employees. We shall include them. We find that all production and maintenance employees of the Em- ployer at its plants in Martinsburg and Charles Town, West Virginia, including shipping department employees, watchmen, firemen, truck drivers, instructors, and learners, but excluding office clerical em- ployees, foremen, 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 meaning 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 Perfection Garment Company, Martinsburg, and Charles Town, West Virginia , 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 Fifth Region, acting in this matter as agent for the National Labor Relations Board-, and sub- A PERFECTION GARMENT COMPANY 213 ject 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 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 be- cause they were ill or on vacation or temporarily laid off, and including employees in the armed forces of the United States who present them- selves 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 Maryland-Virginia District, 1LG`VU-AFL, for the purposes of collective bargaining.