Gurney Manufacturing Co.

In the Matter of GURNEY MANUFACTURING COMPANY AND JEWEL FABRICS COMPANY, EMPLOYERS and TEXTILE WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER Case No. 10-R-2077.-Decided January 28, 1947 Mr. Bernard J. Seff, of Baltimore , Md., for the Employers. Messrs. Houston B. Troupe, Lloyd H. Davis, and C. D. Boart field, of Birmingham , Ala., for the Petitioner. Mr. Melvin J. YVelles, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES Upon a petition duly filed, the National Labor Relations Board on September 27, 1946, conducted a prehearing election among employees of the Employers in the alleged appropriate unit to determine whether or not they desired to be represented by the Petitioner for the purposes of collective bargaining. At the close of the election a Tally of Ballots was furnished the parties. The Tally of Ballots shows the following : Approximate number of eligible voters ----------------------- 240 Void ballots--------------------------- -------------- 0 Votes cast for Petitioner ------------------------------------ 99 Votes cast against Petitioner -------------------- -- 66 Valid votes counted ---------------------------------------- 165 Challenged ballots---------------------------- ---------------------------- -------------- 46 Valid votes counted plus challenged ballots ---------- --------- 211 Thereafter, hearing on the case was held at Prattville, Alabama, before M. A. Prowell, hearing officer. The hearing officer'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 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYERS Gurney Manufacturing Company, herein called Gurney, is an Ala- bama corporation with its principal office and place of business at 72 N. L. R. B., No 61. 311 I 312 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Prattville, Alabama, where it is engaged in the manufacture of yarn. At the time of the hearing, Gurney had been in operation less than 1 year. On the basis of its operations until the hearing, it was esti- mated that its annual purchases would amount in value to approxi- mately $250,000, of which 50 percent would be received from points outside the State of Alabama, and that its annual production would amount in value to approximately $500,000, of which more than 90 percent would be shipped to points outside the State. Jewel Fabrics Company, herein called Jewel, is a North Carolina co-partnership authorized to do business in the State of Alabama. It is engaged in the weaving of cloth at its plant in Prattville, Alabama. At the time of the hearing, Jewel had also been in operation less than 1 year. On the basis of its operations until the hearing, it appears that each week it purchases inaterials valued in excess of $50,000, of which approximately 70 percent is shipped to it from points outside,the State of Alabama, and that each week it produces knit goods valued in excess, of $75,000, all of which is shipped to points outside the State. The Employers admit and we find that they are engaged in com- merce 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 Employers. III. TFIE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION The Employers refuse to recognize the Petitioner as the exclusive bargaining representative of employees of the Employers 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 Employers, within the meaning of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. lv. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT The Petitioner seeks a unit of all production and maintenance em- ployees of Gurney and Jewel, including fixers, section oxen, and card grinders, but excluding executives, office and clerical employees, and all supervisory employees. The Employers contend, however, that the employees of Jewel and the employees of Gurney should constitute separate units, or, in the alternative, that the employees of the two companies be permitted to determine themselves by separate "Globe" elections whether or not they wish to be represented in a single unit; the Employers contend further that fixers, section men, and card GURNEY MANUFACTURING COMPANY 313 grinders should be excluded from any unit or units as supervisory employees? As indicated above, Gurney is a corporation and Jewel a co-partner- ship. Of the three principal co-partners of Jewel, one is president and one is,vice president of Gurney. Gurney and Jewel have one general superintendent who maintains a single office, and controls the operations of both companies. He formulates and effectuates per- sonnel policy for both Gurney and Jewel. Gurney and Jewel jointly occupy two buildings in Prattville, Alabama; Gurney utilizes the two upper floors of the buildings, and Jewel the ground floors of the build- ings which it rents from Gurney.2 All personnel records for both companies are maintained in the general superintendent's office. Pay checks for both companies originate in one office, although they are drawn on separate accounts. Moreover, Gurney and Jewel have a common office force, maintenance crew, machine shop, and receiving and shipping departments. In addition, Jewel uses a portion of Gurney's products. There is little or no interchange of employees between Gurney and Jewel, and the machines of each company require a different skill. However, employees of both companies receive the same treatment and are paid on a comparable basis. Under all the circumstances, we find that the employees of both Gurney and Jewel' constitute a single appropriate unnt.3 There remains for consideration the question of the inclusion of fixers, section men, and card grinders, all of whom, contrary to the Petitioner's desire, the Employers would exclude as supervisory em- ployees. Uncontroverted testimony adduced at the hearing indicates 1At the election, the Employers challenged the ballots of the following per sous, on the ground that they are Jewel employees Vivian Al. Callanhan, Audrey DeRamus. Sanfoid Kelly, Velma J Edwards, Rena Powell, Cynthia Gibbons, Irene Smith, Enunette H. Barber, RuVon Funderburk, Houston Price Aaron Collier, Olen H Dowd, Carol Fell, Rose Ellen Henry, Marron Seamon, James L Moncrief, Katie Louise Fuller, Cov Webb, Jay Briggs. Rudolph Esco, Paul Tatum, Adelaide S Walter, Leo Bush, Allen P Keeton, 0 Y. Sins, Mac Post, Alex L Moncrief The Employees also challenged the ballots of the following employees, on the ground that, as section men, card grinders, and fixers, they have supervisory status Sam Thomp- kins, Dave Dennis, Eugene Tatum (section men) , E W Weems, Benjamin B Fleming, J C Downing (card guiders) and C L Hnckabv, James A. Melton. F B Collier. Robert Anshan, Emmett Montgomery, J C Solley, Coy Webb, and Jay Briggs (fixers ) It should be noted that Webb and Briggs, the last two named employees, were also challenged on the ground that they are employees of Jewel Although Johnnie Thornton was challenged on the grounds that he is an employee of Jewel and a fixer, it was stipulated at the hearing that lie is merely a trainee fixer, having no supervisory authority whatever Thus the Employer withdrew one of the grounds for the challenge to the ballot of this employee • In addition to the above there were six other challenges The ballots of Lillie Middle- brooks, Elizabeth Duncan, Tommie Green. Jadie Sides, and Nelder Mullins were challenged by a Board agent because their names did not appear on the list-of eligibles furnished, and the ballot of Grace Huckabee was challenged by the Petitioner on the ground that she was no longer an employee of the Emploiers at the time of the election 2 A small part of the ground floor of one of the buildings is occupied by Gurney 3 Matter of Branick Manufacturing Company, 54 N L R B 979 , Matte) of Aaron Ferer t Sons, Inc, and Wiping Materials , Inc, 53 N L. R. B. 770. 314 DECISTONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD that all these employees have authority to recommend discharge, and that such recommendations have been made and followed.4 The fixers, section n'ien and card grinders are all regarded by the production and maintenance employees as "bosses." Although they do manual work, the fixers and the section men spend approximately 75 percent of their time in supervision, and the card grinders spend approximately 25 percent of their time in supervision. On the average, each fixer and section man supervises 16 employees, and each card grinder supervises 8. The 3 classifications are all hourly paid, like the production and maintenance employees, but all are paid at a higher rate than the men whom they supervise. In addition, fixers, section men, and card grinders attend special supervisors' meetings, while the rank and file employees do not. We are convinced that all 3 groups of employees are supervisory within the meaning of our customary definition, and we shall exclude them from the unit hereinafter found appropriate. We find that all production and maintenance employees of the Employers, including Johnnie Thornton,' but excluding office and clerical employees, fixers, section men, card grinders, executives, and all other supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, dis- charge, 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 within the mean- ing of Section 9 (b) of the Act. V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES The Employers question the propriety of the prehearing election because Jewel expects in the near future to double or triple the 65 employees it had at the time of the hearing. But we have determined that a single unit of employees of Jewel and Gurney is appropriate. And no contention is made that there will be any increase in the number of approximately 200 employees Gurney engaged at the time of the prehearing election. Thus, even if the number of Jewel em- ployees engaged at the time of the hearing should triple, the incre- ment will be less than half the total complement of approximately 240 employees at Jewel and Gurney at the time of the prehearing election. We are of the opinion, therefore, that the holding of the prehearing election was proper because it was conducted among a representative group of employees in the appropriate unit.,, Of the 46 challenged ballots, 14 were cast by fixers, section meal and card grinders, whom we have excluded from the appropriate unit as supervisory; and 26 were cast by employees of Jewel (excluding 4 Cf. Matter of Thomaston Cotton-Mills, Griffin Division, 66 N L. R. B 731. See footnote 1, supra. See Matter of Tyler Fixture Corporation, 67 N L R. B 945. GURNEY MANUFACTURING COMPANY 315 2 fixers who voted), whom we have determined to include in the unit. Accordingly, we hereby sustain the challenges to the ballots of the 14 fixers, section men and card grinders, namely: C. L. Huckaby, James A. Melton, E. W. Weems, Sam Thompkins, Dave Dennis, F. B. Collier, Benjamin B. Fleming, Robert Ausban, Emmett Mont- gomery, J. C. Downing, J. C. Solley, Eugene Tatum, Coy Webb, and Jay Briggs; and we hereby overrule the challenges to the ballots of the 26 Jewel employees (excluding fixers Coy Webb and Jay Briggs), namely Vivian M. Callanhan, Audrey DeRamus, Sanford Kelly, Velma J. Edwards, Rena Powell, Cynthia Gibbons, Irene Smith, Emmette H. Barber, RuVon Funderburk, Houston Price, Aaron Col- lier, Oren H. Dowd, Carol Fell, Rose Ellen Henry, Marion Seamon,. James L. Moncrief, O. Y. Sims, Mac Post, Alex L. Moncrief, Katie, Louise Fuller, Johnnie Thornton, Rudolph Esco, Paul Tatum, Ade- laide S. Walter, Leo Bush, and Allen P. Keeton. But we deem it unnecessary to direct the opening and counting of the ballots of the 26 Jewel employees which we have determined to be valid, or to pass upon the validity of the 6 remaining challenged ballots. For the Petitioner has received a majority of all valid votes, counted plus the 26 valid and 6 undetermined challenged ballots (99, out of 197). We shall, therefore, certify the Petitioner as the collec- tive bargaining representative of the employees in the appropriate unit. CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National Labor Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Rela- tions Act, and pursuant to Section 20.54 of National Labor Rela- tions Board Rules and Regulations-Series 4, IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that Textile Workers Union of America, CIO, has been designated and selected by a majority of all production and, maintenance employees of Gurney Manufacturing Company and Jewel Fabrics Company, Prattville, Alabama, including Johnnie Thornton, but excluding office and clerical employees, executives, fixers,, section men, card grinders. 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, as their representative for the purposes of collective bargain- ing and that, pursuant to Section 9 (a) of the Act, the said organization is the exclusive representative of all such employees for the purposes, of collective bargaining with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of, employment, and other conditions of employment.