Hat Corp. of America

In the Matter Of HAT CORPORATION OF AMERICA and UNITED HATTERS, CAP AND MILLINERY WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION , Cases Nos. R-976 and R--977.-Decided March 17, 1939 Hat Industry-Investigation of Representatives : controversy concerning rep- resentation of employees : rival organizations ; refusal of employer to recognize either union as exclusive representative of its employees-Unit Appropriate for Collective Bargaining : all employees of the "front shop" including all finishers, trimmers, fiangers, inspectors, printers, labelers, boxers and packers, and shippers, excluding executives, foremen, supervisory employees, and clerical employees-Election Ordered: request that one union 's name be omitted from ballot, because of coippany-domination, not warranted by evidence. Mr. Richard J. Hickey, for the Board. McLanahan, Merritt & Ingraham, by Mr. Henry Clifton, Jr., of New York City, for the Company. Mr. Louis Waldman, by David I. Ashe, of New York City, for the United. Mr. Raymond Enyeart, of East Norwalk, Conn., for the Alliance. Mr. Francis V. Paone, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION STATEMENT OF THE CASE On March 7, 1938, United Hatters, Cap and Millinery Workers International Union, herein called the United, filed a petition with the Regional Director for the Second Region (New York City) alleging that a question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation of employees of Hat Corporation of America, East Norwalk, Connecticut, herein called the Company, and request- ing an investigation and certification of representatives pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. The petition was amended on March 24, 1938. On May 10, 1938, the United filed a second petition with the same Regional Director. On May 28, 1938, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, acting pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the Act and Article III, Section 3, of National Labor Relations 11 N. L. R. B., No. 110. 1206 HAT CORPORATION OF AMERICA ET AL. 1207 Board Rules and Regulations-Series 1, as amended, ordered an investigation with respect to each petition and authorized the Regional Director to conduct it and to provide for an appropriate hearing upon due notice, and, acting pursuant to Article III, Section 10 (c) (2), of said Rules and Regulations, further ordered that the two cases be consolidated for the purposes of hearing. On July 15, 1938, the Regional Director issued a notice of hearing, copies of which were duly served upon the Company, upon the United, and upon Front Shop Departmental Alliance, herein called the Alliance, a labor organization claiming to represent employees directly affected by the investigation. Pursuant to an amended notice, a hearing was held on August 2 and 3, 1938, at South Norwalk, Connecticut, before Herbert A. Lien, the Trial Examiner duly des- ignated by the Board. At the commencement of the hearing the Alliance filed a motion to intervene in the proceeding. This motion was granted by the Trial Examiner. The Board, the Company, and the United were represented by counsel, and the Alliance by its presi- dent. All the parties participated in the hearing and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues. During the course of the hearing the Trial Examiner made several rulings on motions and on objections to the admission of evidence. The Board has re- viewed these rulings and finds that no prejudicial errors were com- mitted. The rulings are hereby affirmed. Upon the entire record in the case the Board makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY Hat Corporation of America is a Delaware corporation engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of men's and ladies' hats. The Company operates two plants located in East Norwalk, Connecticut, designated as plants No. 1 and No. 2, and maintains a branch office and factory in New York City. Only plant No. 1 is involved in this proceeding. In the manufacture of its finished products at East Norwalk, the Company uses fur skins, shellac, sweat leather, silk and cotton rib- bons, silk and cotton threads, and dyes, aggregating in value about $250,000 a year, of which approximately 90 per cent are purchased outside the State of Connecticut. Approximately 90 per cent of the finished products of the East Norwalk plants are shipped to points outside the State. The manufactured products of these plants are valued at approximately $1,000,000 a year. 1208 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED United Hatters, Cap and Millinery Workers International Union, is a labor organization affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, admitting to membership employees of the Company engaged in finishing and trimming operations. Local No. 32 admits to mem- bership all finishers and Local No. 33 all trimmers employed by the Company at East Norwalk. The petitions of the United herein, purport to cover only the finishers in plant No. 1, over whom Local No. 32 exercises jurisdiction. Front Shop Departmental Alliance is a labor organization admit- ting to membership all the employees of the "front shop" of plant No. 1, except executives, foremen, assistant foremen, inspectors, and clerical and supervisory employees. III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION During the latter part of 1937 the United commenced a member- ship drive among the employees in plant No. 1, and on January 17, 1938, requested recognition as the exclusive representative of the finishers therein. The Company, in response to the request of the United, refused to grant such recognition, referring to the Alliance which also claimed to represent the employees. We find that a question has arisen concerning representation of employees of the Company. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION UPON COMMERCE We find that the question concerning representation which has arisen, occurring in connection with the operations of the Company described in Section I above, has a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and tends to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT Plant No. 1 is divided into two parts : the "back shop" where rough hat bodies are fabricated and the "front shop" where the hats are finished, trimmed, packed, and shipped. The claims of the United and the Alliance are confined to the "front shop." The finishing departments for both men's hats and millinery ( women's hats) are located on the third floor therein, the trimming departments for both types of products on the second floor, the flanging department on the first floor, and the printing, labelling, boxing, and shipping de- HAT CORPORATION OF AMERICA ET AL. 1209 partment in the basement. Flanging operations are performed only upon men's hats. The United claims that there are two units appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining : one consisting of finishers, Hangers, and inspectors on men's hats, and the other consisting of finishers and inspectors on women's hats. The United would thus exclude all trimmers as well as employees engaged in printing, labelling, box- ing, and shipping. The Alliance contends that all the employees in the "front shop" except inspectors constitute a single appropriate unit. The Company takes a third position and urges the adoption of two bargaining units : one consisting of the men's hat division, in- cluding finishers, trimmers, and Hangers, and the other consisting of the millinery division, including finishers and trimmers. The Com- pany would exclude inspectors from both units. In support of its claim the United urges that it has confined its organizational activity through Local No. 32 to male employees, all of whom are in the finishing departments. There was testimony that the United attempted to organize both the male employees in the finishing departments and the female employees in the trimming departments but was successful in organizing only the male em- ployees in the finishing departments. The United further contends that the finishing and trimming departments are essentially separate and distinct production units and that the organization of the em- ployees has followed these departmental- lines, as witnessed by the Alliance itself, which is nothing more than an "alliance" or confed- eration of autonomous departmental labor organizations. In urging the adoption of the wider industrial unit, the Alliance on the other hand, points to the functional interdependence of the various departments, the uniform hours of work and other condi- tions of employment that obtain throughout the entire "front shop", and the necessary coordination of all the departments for the suc- cessful operation of the Company's business. The Alliance further claims that it has organized the employees in all the "front shop" departments with the exception of the finishers on millinery. The claim of both the United and the Company that finishers work- ing on men's hats and those working on millinery should be placed in separate units is not supported by the record. There is no showing that collective bargaining for a group of employees including all finishers would prove ineffective. Indeed, Local No. 32 admits to membership all hat finishers, regardless of the type of work they engage in. Nor is the claim of the United for the exclusion of trimmers supported by the evidence. It is clear that the United, in segregating the workers in the industry into various locals at this plant has recognized differences in sex rather than differences in 1210 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD occupation. As described above, Local No. 32 limits its membership to male employees, whereas Local No. 33 limits its membership to female employees. Generally the same working conditions obtain for all employees with the exception of piece-rate wage differentials that are applied as between male and female employees. It is appar- ent, however, that such differentials would not raise substantial ob- structions to successful collective bargaining for both the men and the women as a single unit. In the "front shop" of plant No. 2, limited to the production of men's hats, the United has heretofore sought and obtained a bargaining unit consisting of both male fin- ishers and female trimmers, as well as pouncers and flangers.1 Al- though the United maintains that it there sought a single unit only because the female trimmers had requested to be included, it offered no proof that collective bargaining which proceeded on the basis of such unit has proved ineffective. The claims of the United are apparently based upon the extent to which it has organized the Company's employees in plant No. 1. Were the United the only labor organization seeking to represent the employees herein, its claims would have some merit. It is undis- puted, however, that the Alliance has succeeded in organizing the employees beyond the claims of the United. Furthermore, the United does not seriously maintain that in organizing the finishers it has embraced all the employees in the "front shop" who are recognized as members of the same craft.- We conclude that the bargaining units proposed by the United and the Company are not appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining.2 It is apparent that generally the industrial unit urged by the Alli- ance may properly constitute an appropriate collective bargaining unit. All the parties agree that executives, foremen, assistant fore- men, supervisory employees, and clerical employees should be ex- cluded from the appropriate unit. As noted above, the United would include inspectors whereas the Alliance would exclude them as super- visory employees. Inspectors are responsible for checking finished hats for flaws and defects. They exercise no supervisory powers and the record shows that they are eligible for membership in both the United and the Alliance.3 Under the circumstances we shall include them in the appropriate unit. 1Matter of Hat Corporation of America and United Hatters, Cap and Millinery Workers International Union, 3 N. L R. B. 931. 2 Cf. Matter of Postal Telegraph-Cable Company of Massachusetts and American Radio Telegraphists' Association, 7 N. L R. B. 444. Matter of R. C. A. Communications, Inc. and American Radio Telegraphists' Association, 2 N. L. R. B. 1109. 8 Early in the hearing the Alliance sought the inclusion of inspectors. Later, how- ever, it reversed its position . The record shows that the Alliance numbers inspectors among its members. HAT CORPORATION OF AMERICA ET AL . 1211 We find that all the employees of the "front shop" of the Company at plant No. 1 including all finishers, trimmers, Hangers, inspectors, printers, labelers, boxers and packers, and shippers, but excluding executives, foremen, assistant foremen, supervisory employees, and clerical employees, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining, and that such unit will insure to employees of the Company, the full benefit of their right to self-organization and to collective bargaining and otherwise effectuate the policies of the Act. VI. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES There was introduced in evidence the pay roll of plant No. 1 as of May 10, 1938, which listed the names of approximately 661 employees in the appropriate unit. The United introduced 167 membership cards of employees within the unit. The Alliance introduced 404 application cards which it alleged were signed by employees in the unit. The United challenged the genuineness of the signatures on the cards offered by the Alliance, and although counsel for the Company offered to submit to the Board subsequent to the hearing a list of the signatures of employees for the purposes of comparison, he has since notified the Board that such a list is not available. Under the cir- cumstances we find that an election by secret ballot is necessary in order to resolve the question concerning representation. The United contended at the hearing that if an' election is ordered, the Alliance be excluded from participating therein on the ground that it is a company-dominated labor organization. Although the United was permitted to introduce testimony in support of its con- tention, the evidence does not warrant our making such a finding.4 Since the parties have not suggested a pay-roll date for the purposes of determining the eligibility, of employees to participate in the elec- tion, we shall adopt for such purposes the pay roll next preceding the date of this Decision and Direction of Election. Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following : CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. A question affecting commerce has arisen concerning the repre- sentation of employees of Hat Corporation of America, East Nor- walk, Connecticut, within the meaning of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act. 2. All employees of the "front shop" of the Company at plant No. 1 including all finishers, trimmers, Hangers, inspectors, printers, 4Matter of Bemis Biothers Bag Company and Textile Workers Organ4zung Committee, 10 N. L. R B. 235. 1212 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD labelers, boxers and packers, and shippers, but excluding executives, foremen, assistant foremen, supervisory employees, and clerical em- ployees, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining, within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act. DIRECTION OF ELECTION By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National Labor Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, and pursuant to Article III, Section 8, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 1, as amended, it is hereby DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation authorized by the Board to ascertain representatives for collective bargaining with the Hat Corporation of America, East Norwalk, Connecticut, an election, by secret ballot shall be conducted within fifteen (15) days from the date of this Direction, under the direction and super- vision of the Regional Director for the Second Region, acting in this matter as agent for the National Labor Relations Board and sub- ject to Article III, Section 9, of said Rules and Regulations, among the employees of the Hat Corporation of America, who were em- ployed in the "front shop" of the Company at plant No. 1, East Norwalk, Connecticut, including all finishers, trimmers, Hangers, in- spectors, printers, labelers, boxers and packers, and shippers, but excluding executives? foremen, assistant foremen, supervisory em- ployees, and clerical employees, whose names appear on the pay roll of the Company next preceding the date of this Direction, except those who will have quit or been discharged for cause between that date and the date of the election, to determine whether they desire to be represented by United Hatters, Cap and Millinery Workers In- ternational Union, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, or by Front Shop Departmental Alliance, for the purposes of col- lective bargaining, or by neither.