Dexdale Hosiery Mills

228 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the dependence of production operations on steam or electricity pro- duced in powerhouses involved in other cases in which we have rejected expressly such contentions and ordered severance elections .9, Accordingly, in these circumstances and on the record as a whole, we find that the stationary engineers constitute a distinct, homogeneous,. and functionally coherent group of the sort which the Board has con- sistently held may, if it desires, constitute a separate appropriate bargaining unit.10 4. We find, therefore, that the following employees may constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act : All stationary engineers employed by the Employer in its boiler- room at its Garden City, New York, plant, but excluding all others including refrigeration engineers and technicians, guards, and all supervisors within the meaning of the Act. 5. However, we shall make no final unit determination at this time, but shall be guided in part by the desires of these employees as ex- pressed in the election hereinafter directed. If a majority vote for the Petitioner, they will be taken to have indicated their de*ir-es, to constitute a separate appropriate unit, and the Regional Director con- ducting the election directed herein is instructed to issue a certification of representatives to the Petitioner for the unit described in paragraph numbered 4, which the Board, under such circumstances finds to be appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining. In the event a, majority do not vote for the Petitioner, these employees shall remain part of the existing unit and the Regional Director will issue a cer tification of results to such effect." [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] ON. I. DuPont de Nemours and Company, etc., op. cit. supra; General Electric Company (Fitchburg Works ), 110 NLRB 744. w Natvar Corporation, 109 NLEB 1278; Westinohon a Electric Corporation, 108 NLRR 556; Schering Corporation, op. cit. , supra; Celoten Corporation, op. cit. supra ; Inter- national Harvester Company, Milwaukee Works, 85 NLRB 1175. ^i American Tobaoco Company, Ino., 115 NLRB 218. Dexdale Hosiery Mills 1 and International Molders and Foundry Workers Union of North America, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 4-RC-08°32. January °L5,1956 DECISION AND ORDER Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before William Draper Lewis, Jr., 3 The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing. 115 NLRB No. 27. DEXDALE HOSIERY MILLS . 229 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 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: Dexdale Hosiery Mills, herein called Dexdale, is engaged in hosiery making operations. Turbo Machine Company, herein called Turbo, a division of Dexdale, makes various automatic machinery. The Peti- tioner seeks a unit of the production employees confined to Turbo and the maintenance employees common to both Dexdale and Turbo. The Employer contends that only an overall unit of production employees of both manufacturing divisions and the maintenance employees ,common to both is appropriate. There is no prior history of collective bargaining. Both Dexdale and Turbo, although separately incorporated, are singly owned and operated, in substance, as two different production 'divisions of a single employer. The Dexdale division makes women's hosiery and the Turbo division makes automatic machinery. Some of the machinery made by Turbo is made for Dexdale's use and the rest for outside customers. Operations of both divisions are confined to 10 buildings located at a single site. Working space is about evenly divided between employees of both divisions who, with the exception of one building which is used solely by Turbo employees, work in dif- ferent or adjacent areas in the same buildings. There is a single office for both divisions which handles all paychecks and social- security and tax deductions. Payroll, social-security, and tax mat- ters for both divisions are handled in the name of Dexdale. There are common guard services. There is one maintenance department com- mon to both divisions. Costs of these common services are prorated between the Dexdale and Turbo production divisions based on the amount of space occupied by each operation. Employee skills in each of the production divisions differ and there is no interchange of employees. Each division does its own hiring and job tenure is divisionwide. Most of the Dexdale employees are paid on a piece-rate basis while Turbo's are hourly rated. Wages are han- dled separately for each division. This is also true of the maintenance department. Supervision is separate, and working hours differ to some extent with respect to each of these groups, including the mainte- nance=department, 230 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The Board has generally, in the absence of cogent reasons to the contrary such as bargaining history, included all production and maintenance employees in a single plantwide unit.' This general rule has been applied even where, as here, more than one production de- partment was involved.' In the instant case, not only does the Pe- titioner seek only 1 of the 2 production departments, but also seeks to combine that production department with the maintenance em- ployees who are common to both production departments. Although the Board customarily grants separate representation to mainte- nance employees when no previous bargaining history of representa- tion on a broader basis exists,' the Petitioner is not confining its request to the maintenance employees, but seeks to carve out a unit comprising maintenance employees and 1 of 2 production departments. As the Board has consistently held, a unit which does not include all the production employees is inappropriate. Nor is any deviation from this policy justified when a Petitioner, such as here, seeks to combine them with the maintenance employees. We have taken into consideration the factors alleged by the Petitioner in favor of its unit position, predicated upon differences such as those that exist in functional operations and supervision, but do not find them persuasive reasons for departing from the policy we have estab- lished. To do so would permit the fragmentizing of groups of pro- duction employees of a singly owned, operated, and controlled Em- ployer who work in close proximity to one another, sharing, together 9 of the 10 buildings in which the Employer's operations are carried on, and serviced by a common maintenance department. Accordingly, for the reasons stated, including the inherent inappropriateness of combining 1 of 2 production departments with a common mainte- nance department, we find the unit sought inappropriate, and shall dismiss the petition. [The Board dismissed the petition.] MEMBER PETERSON, dissenting : Contrary to the action taken herein by my colleagues, I would not dismiss this petition. In my opinion, each of the groups involved,' to wit, the Dexdale production employees, the Turbo production employees, and the maintenance employees, could constitute a separate .appropriate unit. My colleagues concede that the Board customarily 8 E. g., Comfort Slipper Corporation, 111 NLRB 188 ; Mutual Rough Hat Company, 86 NLRB 440. 3 Beaumont Forging Co., 110 NLRB 2200. (Although the two production departments were separately located, skills were different , and no employee interchange , the Board held a single overall unit appropriate , stating at pp. 2201-2: "A plant unit ... Is pre- sumptively appropriate and should , other things being equal, prevail over other unit types not designated by the statute.") 4 See, for example, Carpenter Baking Company, Inc, 112 NLRB 288; Simmons Company, 112 NLRB 88. POLLOCK PAPER CORPORATION 231 grants separate representation to maintenance employees when no pre- vious bargaining history of representation on a broader basis exists 5 In my opinion, parity of reasoning dictates the conclusion that if the skills of the maintenance employees are sufficiently distinct from those of the production employees for unit purposes-and certainly that is so here-the corollary is equally true. Indeed, there have been Board cases, albeit few in number, where absent bargaining history units of production employees have been found appropriate.' Furthermore, if, as I believe, there is sufficient basis for finding that units of produc- tion and maintenance employees could be separately appropriate here, there is equal reason for holding that separate units of the Turbo pro- duction employees and Dexdale production employees would likewise be appropriate. For, the record makes it manifest that the duties and skills of these production employees are completely different. Thus, the Dexdale division makes women's hosiery and the Turbo division makes automatic machinery ; employee skills in each of these production divisions differ and there is no interchange of employees; each division does its own hiring and job tenure is divisionwide; most of the Dexdale employees are paid on a piece-rate basis while Turbo's are hourly rated; wages are handled separately for each division; supervision is separate; and working hours differ. In these circumstances, I believe that since each of the three groups involved could constitute a separate appropriate unit, the combina- tion here proposed is also appropriate. There does not appear to be any persuasive reason for not establishing a unit of the Turbo produc- tion employees and the maintenance employees, particularly in light of the fact that the remaining group-the Dexdale production employ- ees-would be separately appropriate in the event another union desires to represent it. Accordingly, I would direct an election among the employees sought by the Petitioner. 5 See footnote 4, supra. 6 Stauffer Chemical Company, 108 NLRB 1037; Wrought Iron Range Company, 75 NLRB 400. Pollock Paper Corporation (Waterproof-Ohio -- Division) and Middletown Printing Pressmen's and Assistants' Union, Local Number 235, AFL-CIO,' Petitioner. Case No. 9-RC-2597. Janu- ary 25,1956 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Rosemary S. Macke, hearing ' The AFL and the CIO having merged , we are amending the identification of the Unions' affiliations. 115 NLRB No. 33.