Sidney Blumenthal & Co. Inc.

SIDNEY BLUMENTHAL & COMPANY, INC. 579 employees, Nye see no reason for departing from the Board's usual policy of directing an immediate election.ll [The Board dismissed the petition in Case No. 10-RC-2970.] [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] 11 Mid-West Refine? 2es, Inc., 98 NLRB 1043, 1046; The Borden Company, 89 NLRB 227, 229 Sidney Blumenthal & Company, Inc. (Caromount Division) and Textile Workers Union of America, CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 11-RC-719. May 3,1955 DECISION AND ORDER Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Robert Cohn, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudi- cial error and are hereby affirmed.' Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 2. The labor organization involved claims to represent employees of the Employer. 3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa- tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, for the following reasons: The Petitioner seeks to represent a unit of production and main- tenance employees at the Employer's Rocky Mount, North Carolina, plant. The Employer contends that only a unit comprised of em- ployees at both its Rocky Mount and Wilson, North Carolina, plants is appropriate. The Employer, a manufacturer of textile products, operates single plants in Connecticut and Rhode Island, and two in North Carolina, This proceeding involves only the Rocky Mount, North Carolina, plant. There is no history of collective bargaining at either the Rocky Mount or Wilson plant.' I On Maich 7, 1955, the day before the hearing, the Employer filed a charge against the Petitioner , alleging violation of Section 8 (b) (1) (A ) of the Act. Because of the lateness of the charge and as the hearing had been scheduled for some time, the hearing officer denied the Employer's motion to postpone the hearing pending the disposition of the charge. Under these circumstances, we find that there has been no abuse of the hearing officer 's discretion . Moreover , in view of the fact that the Regional Director has since found without merit and dismissed the charge , we shall proceed with the case 2In 1946, as a result of a petition filed by the current Petitioner , the Board directed an election in a unit confined to the Rocky Mount plant. Sidney Blumenthal & Co , Inc, 68 NLRB 859. As the Union lost the election, however, there has been no history of collective bargaining. 112 NLRB No. 79 369028--56-vol. 112-38 580 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The record discloses that the Rocky Mount and Wilson plants, which employ 700 and 300 production and maintenance employees, respec- tively, are located 18 miles apart, and are engaged in substantially the same type of processing, namely, the weaving and manufacture of pile fabrics. Thus, except for the fact that the Wilson plant has no finishing department, and operates some looms which differ slightly from those at Rocky Mount, the departmental structure and functions of the two plants are similar. Yarn materials for both plants are, for the most part, purchased on the open market by the Rocky Mount purchasing agent. All of Wilson's final production is sent to Rocky Mount for dyeing and finishing, and Rocky Mount's total product is sold directly to customers. Both plants operate on a 3-shift basis. The operation of each plant is vested in a common management as is shown by the fact that several of Rocky Mount's top supervisors, in- cluding the superintendent of weaving, the superintendent of raw materials, the manager of manufacturing, and the vice president in charge of manufacturing, have jurisdiction over their respective departments in both plants.' The supervisory personnel of both plants regularly engage in joint conferences. All heavy maintenance, as well as truck-driving functions, for the Wilson plant are performed by Rocky Mount personnel. Although the personnel director occasionally travels from Rocky Mount to Wilson to interview job applicants for the Wilson plant, all hiring for both plants is done at the personnel office at Rocky Mount; 4 employees for both plants are carried on a single payroll which is made up by the payroll department at Rocky Mount, from which the pay checks for all employees emanate; clock numbers of employees of both plants are integrated on one list kept at Rocky Mount; employees of both plants share the same employee benefits in the form of vacations and holidays, work approximately the same hours, and are paid iden- tical rates for similar job classifications. The record further discloses that there is a certain amount of employee interchange between the plants as evidenced by the fact that Rocky Mount employees are sent to Wilson for several weeks at a time to help out in the plant,5 and, on occasion, Wilson employees are sent to Rocky Mount for further training. At the hearing, it was estimated by the Employer, without contradiction, that a closing of the Wilson operations would have the effect of cutting in half the total production of the Rocky Mount plant, and, conversely, that if 8 It does not appear that either plant has a separate superintendent in charge of only the operations of such plant * Although the Wilson and Rocky Mount employees reside in and around their respective towns, it appears that, because of the proximity of the two towns, some of the Rocky Mount employees live closer to Wilson , and vice versa G Although the record does not reveal the frequency of this interchange , it appears that it is confined, for the most pact , to relatively skilled employees DEPENDABLE PARTS, INC. 581 the Rocky Mount plant were to cease operations, it would result in a complete shutdown of the Wilson plant. As noted above, in 1946 the Board found appropriate a unit con- fined to the Rocky Mount production and maintenance employees. Due to substantial changes in the Employer's operations, and the fact that our earlier decision was based primarily upon : (1) the extent of the petitioner's organization, a factor to which the Board is now ,precluded from giving controlling weight; 6 (2) the absence of em- ployee interchange, which interchange the record herein reveals now exists; and (3) the geographical separation of the plants, which, by itself, is not sufficient reason to render a unit inappropriate;' we deem our earlier decision not controlling. In view of the foregoing, and particularly the integration and in- terdependence of operations, common supervision, uniformity of work- ing conditions, and close community of employee interests in the two plants," we are of the opinion that the requested unit limited to the Rocky Mount employees is too narrow in scope to be appropriate .9 We shall, therefore, dismiss the petition.'° [The Board dismissed the petition.] U See Murray Corporation of America-Ecorse Plant, 101 NLRP. 313 at 315. 7 See Herpolsheimer Company, 100 NLRB 1452 at 1453 See also Boland Manufacturing Company, 83 NLRB 1254 at 1255, where the Board found that 2 plants located 30 miles apart constituted an appropriate unit 1Phtillaps-Jones Corporation, 9h NLRB 153 at 154 See Acme Electreo Corporation, 102 NLRB 1233 at 1234-1235; Homestabe Mining Company, 105 NLRB 198 at 200-201; and Ross Lumber Company, 94 NLRB 636 at 637 w In view of our disposition of this case, we find it unnecessary to pass upon other issues raised at the healing concerning the unit inclusion of certain employee classifications Dependable Parts, Inc. 1 and Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse- men and Helpers Local Union No. 612, International Brother- hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, AFL, Petitioner. Case No. 10-RC-30M. May 3, 1955 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Gilbert Cohen, hear- ing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 1. The Employer is an Alabama corporation engaged at its plant in Birmingham, Alabama, in the wholesale distribution of automobile parts. During the past year the Employer purchased automobile parts r The Employer 's name appears as amended at the hearing. 112 NLRB No. 77.