Dove Manufacturing Co.

778 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD concerted activities, it will be recommended that the Respondent offer to Blakely immediate and full reinstatement to his former or substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his former rights and privileges, and make him whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against him by payment to him of a sum of money equal to the amount he would normally have earned as wages, from the date of his discharge until his reinstatement as described above, less his net earnings during this period. The loss of earnings shall be com- puted in accordance with the Woolworth formula, F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289. It is also recommended that the Respondent be ordered to make available to the Board and its agents, upon request, payroll and other records to facilitate the check- ing of the amount of earnings due. Needless to say, the Trial Examiner in recommending the reinstatement of Blakely is in no way condoning any of Blakely's activities that may have breached his obligation as an employee and Blakely is in no way intended to be excused from conforming to such legitimate standards of employee conduct as Respondent may have, no more and no less. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case, the Trial Examiner makes the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Softexture Yarns, Inc., is an employer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act and is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. Textile Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO, and Local 1932 thereof, and United Textile Workers of America, AFL-CIO, are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By discriminating in regard to the hire, tenure, and conditions of employment of Robert Blakely, thereby discouraging membership in a labor organization or labor organizations, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. 4. By said discriminatory conduct, which interferes with, restrains, and coerces employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. 5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. [Recommendations omitted from publication.] Mark J. Gerry, Inc. d/b/a Dove Manufacturing Company 1 and Los Angeles Dress and Sportswear Joint Board , I.L.G.W.U., AFL-CIO, and Local 994, International Brotherhood of Team- sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers, Joint Peti- tioners. Case No. 21-RC-6438. August 23, 1960 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 Belle Karlinsky, 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. 1 The Employer's name appears as amended at the hearing. 128 NLRB No. 107. DOVE MANUFACTURING COMPANY 779, 2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain eln- ployees of the Employer 2 3. A 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. 4. The Petitioners seek to represent a unit of all production em- ployees, including shipping and receiving employees, but excluding mechanics and other maintenance personnel as well as the customary exclusions. The Employer and Intervenor ;stipulated that such a unit was appropriate although they disagreed with the Petitioner as to the unit placement of certain individuals. The Employer produces women's apparel, employing about 100 persons in classifications such as operators, finishers, cutters, order pickers, and packers which are customarily found in the garment in- dustry. It employs only one maintenance employee, a mechanic who repairs the sewing machines. So fas as appears, there has been no history of bargaining for any of these employees. The Board has in the past found units of production employees appropriate in the garment industry where the parties have stipu- lated thereto, and where there has not been any history of bargaining.3 The Board is now, however, of the opinion that there are no special circumstances peculiar to that industry to warrant our approval of stipulations for production units. In accord with our well-established policy of rejecting stipulations for a unit of production employees in other industries, we find that a unit of production and maintenance employees is alone appropriate here. The parties also stipulated that the floorman and floorlady are supervisors and that the floorgirls are not supervisors. As the record substantiates this agreement of the parties, we accept it. The Em- ployer and Intervenor would include the head cutter and the head shipping clerk in the unit, while the Petitioners would exclude them as supervisors. These individuals each work with three or four other employees doing similar work. Whatever directions they may give are routine in nature. Neither is authorized to hire or discharge the employees who work with them nor do they make effective recom- mendations as to changes in employees' status. We find that the head cutter and the head shipping clerk are not supervisors, and include them in the unit. 2 The Petitioners refused to stipulate that Employees ' Group, the Intervenor herein, is a labor organization as defined in the Act . A representative of the Intervenor testified that it has no constitution or bylaws , has no officers, and requires no dues of its mem- bers, but that employees of the Employer participate in its activities, and that it exists for the purpose of dealing with the Employer concerning wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of work. We find that the Intervenor is a labor organization as defined in the Act The Root Thy Goods Co ., Inc., 126 NLRB 953. 8 Governale & Drew, Inc , 106 NLRB 1317 ; Michael Silvers, d/b/a Silvers Sportswear, 108 NLRB 588 ; Swee-T-Shirts, Inc., 111 NLRB 377; 'and Mschele Frocks, 121 NLRB 1273. 780 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD In view of the foregoing, we find that all production and mainte- nance employees at the Employer's Los Angeles, California, plant, including shipping and receiving employees, the floorgirls, the head cutter, and the head shipping clerk, but excluding office employees, salesmen, professional employees, guards, the floorman and floorlady, and other supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appro- priate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] MEMBER BEAN took no part in the consideration of the above De- cision and Direction of Election. Jat Transportation Corp. et al. and International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen, and Helpers, Taxi Drivers and Terminal Employees, Local Union 826,1 Petitioner. Cases Nos. 2-RC-9948-50, 2-RC-9953-57, 2-RC-9960, 2-RC- 9964-66, 2-RC-9968-77, 2-RC-9979-89, 2-RC-9991-93, 2-RC- 9995-98, 2-RC-10000-03, 2-RC-10005, 2-RC-10007-08, 2-RC- 10013, 2-RC-10015-19, 2-RC-10021-25, 2-RC-10027-28, and 2-RC-10290. August 23, 1960 DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Milton A. Shaham, hearing officer? The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. In this proceed- ing, 71 petitions were initially consolidated for hearing; of these, 9 petitions were withdrawn by the Petitioner and 1 case was severed from the consolidated proceedings Thereafter, hearings were com- pleted in the remaining 61 cases, the parties filed briefs there, and requested oral argument.' 1 The Petitioner's name appears as amended at the hearing. 2 On the basis of contractual interest , the following labor organizations were allowed to intervene - New Yorker Taxi Workers Association in New Yorker Fleet Inc., et al., Case No. 2-RC-9970 ; 3999 Taxi Cab Drivers Association in Jackson Maintenance Corp., et al., Case No. 2-RC-9977; and Metropolitan Taxi Workers Union in 57th Street Management Corp, et al., Case No 2-RC-10290. s The Employers filed interlocutory motions for leave to appeal from the hearing officer's denial of their motions to sever each of the cases . The motions for leave to appeal were denied by the Board in its order of March 8, 1960, without prejudice to renewal at a later time . These motions were renewed at the close of the hearing thereafter. As all the cases remaining in this proceeding have common issues, the Employers ' motions for severance are hereby denied. 4 As the record and the briefs of the parties adequately present the issues and the positions of the parties, the requests for oral argument are hereby denied. 128 NLRB No. 95.