Standard Hat Co.

In the Matter of STANDARD HAT COMPANY and UNITED HATTERS, CAP & MILLINERY WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION In the Matter of STANDARD HAT COMPANY and UNITED HATTERS, CAP & MILLINERY WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION Cases Nos. R-1129 and C-1310, respectively.Decided November 17, 1939 Hat Manufacturing Industry-Interference, Restraint, and Coercion: anti-union activity by respondent's president, supervisory employees, and agent, discourag- ing joining and retention of membership in union-Investigation of Represent- atives: controversy concerning representatives of employees: majority status disputed by employer-Unit Appropriate for Collective Bargaining: production employees; excluding plant superintendent, inspectors, foremen and foreladies, machinist, floor boys, porters, shipping-department employees, and office and clerical help, but including extra help and apprentices-Representatives: proof of choice: at hearing, employees withdraw, destroying majority: defections questionable, in view of employer's previous unfair labor practices-Election Ordered: postponed until receipt of information from Regional Director that circumstances permit a free choice of representatives. Mr. Marion A. Prowell, Mr. Arthur C. O'Connor, and Mr. Reeves R. Hilton, for the Board. Mr. John L. Westmoreland, of Atlanta Ga., for the respondent. Mr. Joseph Jacobs, of Atlanta, Ga., for the United. Mr. Harry Brownstein, of counsel to the Board. DECISION ORDER AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION STATEMENT OF THE CASE On October 17, 1938, United Hatters, Cap & Millinery Workers International Union, herein called the United, filed with the Regional Director for the Tenth Region (Atlanta, Georgia), a petition alleging that a question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the repre- sentation of employees of Standard Hat Company, Atlanta, Georgia, herein- called the respondent, and requesting an investigation and certification of representatives pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. 17 N. L. R. B., No. 75. 883 884 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD On October 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 Board Rules and_. Regulations-Series 1, as amended, ordered an investigation and' authorized the Regional Director to conduct it and to provide for an. appropriate hearing upon due notice. On November 2, 1938, the Regional Director issued a notice of hearing, copies of which were duly served upon the respondent an& the United. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held on November 11- and 15, 1938, at Atlanta, Georgia, before J. J. Fitzpatrick, the Trial' Examiner duly designated by the Board. The Board, the respond- ent, and the United were represented by counsel and participated in the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross- examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issue& was afforded all parties. 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 reviewed the rulings of the: Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudicial errors were committed.- The rulings are hereby affirmed. Upon charges and amended charges thereafter duly filed by the United, the Board, by the Regional Director for the Tenth Region, issued its complaint dated April 5, 1939, against the respondent alleging that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging hi unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. The complaint and notice of hearing were duly served upon the respondent and the United. The complaint alleged, in substance, that the respondent froni about September 1, 1938, to the date of the complaint, urged its em- ployees to refrain from joining or retaining membership in the United, and by other acts interfered with, restrained, and coerced" its employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. On April 13, 1939, the respondent filed a motion for a: bill of particulars and an answer to the complaint, admitting cer- tain allegations as to the nature of its business but denying that it had engaged in or was engaging in the unfair labor practices as alleged. On April 17, 1939, the Board, acting pursuant to Article- III, Section 10 (c) (2), and Article II, Sections 36 and 37 (b),. of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 1, as amended, ordered that the representation case be reopened,. and: ordered the consolidation of the complaint and representation cases for the purpose of hearing. Pursuant to notice, a hearing on the consolidated cases was held' on April 27 and 28, 1939, at Atlanta., Georgia, before Henry W:. STANDARD HAT COMPANY 885 Schmidt, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board. The Board, the respondent, and the United were represented by counsel.. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses,. and introduce evidence bearing upon the issues was afforded all parties. At the commencement of the hearing, the Trial Examiner overruled the respondent's motion for a bill of particulars. During the course of the hearing, the Trial Examiner made several other rulings on motions and on objections to the admission of evidence. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no 'prejudicial errors were committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. Thereafter, the Trial Examiner filed his Intermediate Report, copies of which were duly served on all parties. He found that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor prac- tices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. He recommended that the re- spondent cease and desist from such practices, and take certain af- firmative action in order to. effectuate the policies of the Act. On June 20, 1939, the respondent filed exceptions to the Interme- diate Report. On September 19, 1939, pursuant to notice duly served upon the respondent and the United, a hearing was held before the Board at Washington, D. C., for the purpose of oral argument. The respondent and the United were represented by counsel and partici- pated in the oral argument. The Board has considered the exceptions of the respondent to the Intermediate Report and, in so far as they are inconsistent with the findings, conclusions, and order set forth below, finds no merit in them. Upon the, entire record in the case, the Board makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT I. BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT 1 The respondent, the Standard Hat Company, is a Georgia corpora- tion engaged in the manufacture and sale of ladies' hats. The re- spondent used approximately $74,000 worth of raw material between September 1, 1937, and September 1, 1938, consisting principally of felt, straw braids, straw bodies, materials, and supplies. Approxi- mately 90 per cent of this raw material was received by the respondent from points outside the State of Georgia.. During the same period, the respondent manufactured approximately 14,000 dozen hats, of an approximate value of $150,000. Ninety per cent of the finished prod- ucts were shipped to points outside the State of Georgia. ' The findings in this section are based upon a stipulation of facts. .886 DECISIONS 0:.'. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD `I+L::THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED. The United is a - labor organization affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, 'admitting into membership all production em- -ployees of the respondent, excluding foremen and foreladies, main- tenance men, floor1 boys, shipping-department employees, and office and clerical help. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES During the months of August, September, and October, 1938, the United conducted an organizational campaign among the respondent's employees. One day in the fore part of October 1938, R. J. Holt, a machinist employed by the respondent, addressed the respondent's -production employees located in each department. C. J. Hogan, a foreman, and Cora Mae Hayes, an assistant forelady, were present when some of Holt's addresses were made. According to his own -testimony, Holt told'the employees .. . before they [the United] started to tearing up a place like this, let them finish the job they started at the American [Hat Company] ; look at what they done there. Take the thing under the circumstances there, and see what they have done there and see if you can, if you think it will pay you to advance yourselves into the union [the United]. In each address Holt concluded with the suggestion that the em- ployees see J. G. Blonstein, the respondent's president, and let him know "just how we stood." When an employee demurred, Hayes told her to "go on down stairs and tell him [Blonstein] if you are in or out." Holt then led the employees to Blonstein's office. Blonstein told the employees, among whom were forelacies and .assistant foreladies, that he "loved [them] all," and that he wanted them to be "just a happy family, and not two sides." Blonstein testified, and we find, that he suggested to the employees that "if there was anything that needed to be done for them to come and tell me about it; . . . there is no use to go outside, my office is always open, you can come and talk to me." Blonstein further testified at the hearing that these remarks to his employees were prompted by his be- lief that he could "deal better and to the advantage of the employees direct than through an outsider." 2 2 At the oral argument, counsel for the respondent conceded that Blonstein meant "he didn't want them to discuss it with . . . employees of anybody else, or discuss it with out- siders ; he wanted them to just come to him. . . . He merely stated that he would rather have it as a happy family, just as it always had been, and to come see him if they had grievances." STANDARD HAT COMPANY 887 Burnett, a forelady, repeatedly spoke to employees throughout the months of September, October, and November, 1938, about their affiliation with the United. Again, after the meeting described above, Burnett asked Alta Lash, an employee, if she had joined the United, and stated that Blonstein "would likely move to New York if we did, or else go out of business." Other employees testified that Bur- nett told them that "no God damn union can tell me what to do," and "before I would sign somebody else's rights away I would quit my job." This testimony is undenied, and we find that Burnett made the statements attributed to her. In the latter part of October 1937, Holt told an employee who had signed a statement designating the United as her bargaining representative, that "you just keep on signing things that come along, and you will be out of a job and down and out of the door with the door locked behind you." 3 On November 3, 1938, the respondent sent letters to a number of employees who were laid off, as follows : It has come to the attention of the management that state- ments have been made to some of the employees of this Company that it would be`necessary for the employees to join some organ- ization in order-to keep their jobs with this Company. ANY SUCH STATEMENT IS NOT TRUE. We have repeatedly stated and now wish to call your attention that it is not necessary for you to join any organization of any kind in order to keep your job with this Company. You are at liberty at any time to discuss with the management any question in regard to your employment and it will make no difference to' the management whether you are or are' not a member of any organization. We hope that it will not be long before our business will be such that we can resume full time employment. Cordially; (Signed) J. G. BLONSTEIN. STANDARD HAT COMPANY. 8 The employee's testimony Is as follows : ". . . one day he [ Holt] came up to me and he sat down by me and he says, Have you got a pocketknife ?' and I says, . . .'Why, no, I haven't got a pocketknife , . . . Why?' and he says. 'I thought if you didn't have one that I would let you have mine,' and I says, 'What would I want with a pocketknife?' and he says, 'I see that you sign anything and everything that comes along , and I thought maybe that you just wanted to cut your meat and bread off, and I thought that I would help you out if that is what you wanted to do,' and I said, 'I don 't think I need any help' and he says , 'You just keep on signing things that come along, and you will be out of a job and down and out of the door with the door locked behind you ' and I says If that is the way you feel, I am sorry, because my brother raised me , and he is a railroad union man and I have always been taught to believe in unions , I feel that way about it.' " This testimony is not denied. 247384-40-vol. 17-57 888 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD A notice embodying the same statement as the letter was posted on the time clock in the respondent's plant. About November 12, 1938, Alma Townsend, an employee who was temporarily laid off, borrowed $10 from Blonstein. - Blonstein, who frequently made loans to other employees, stated to her that he had expected his employees to return his kindness, but "when they needed help, they went to the outside for help." Calling Townsend's atten- tion to the fact that at another hat company employees had been unemployed due to a strike, Blonstein urged her to "talk to the boys and girls about this." Immediately after Townsend left Blonstein, she solicited an employee to join the United. Upon returning to work in December, Townsend was informed by Hogan and Holt that Blonstein was "sore as hell the way that you did about it, borrowing the money and then going up the street and cussing Mr. Roquemore, [the employee] . . . because he wouldn't join the union." 4 In the early part of January 1939, 'the respondent posted a notice on its bulletin board informing its employees of their privilege to withdraw from membership in a labor organization.g The above acts clearly,reveal the respondent's effort. to prevent the unionization, of its employees. Holt,° supervisory employees, and the respondent's president, discouraged the, employees from joining the United and encouraged them to withdraw if they had already joined. Considered alone, Blonstein's conduct constituted an interference with the employees' right to self-organization. In his talk to the employ- ees in October, Blonstein expressed his antipathy toward "outside" unions, and his unwillingness to deal with anyone but individual employees on problems. mutually concerning them. He further 4 Blonstein did not deny making a loan to Townsend , or calling her attention to the situ- ation caused by a strike elsewhere. He did, however, deny asking Townsend to talk to other employees about the United. In view of Blonstein 's exhibited union hostility, and his irritation which appeared when he learned of Townsend's activity with reference to Roquemore, we cannot credit Blonstein's denial, and we find the facts as above set forth. 6 The following is the notice posted : "We have been asked by some of our employees regarding a rumor in our factory to the effect that one cannot withdraw from a union after be once joins . The management wants to make it clear that there is no law that forces you to join or not to join and in the event you have joined the union and wish to with- draw at any time , it is your privilege to do so." I Holt, while not a ' supervisory employee, was given considerable authority about the plant, and granted privileges not extended to other employees . When Holt called the meet- ings mentioned above, and took the employees to' see Blonstein , production stopped, yet Holt was not admonished in any way therefor. In addition , Holt's talks to the employees occurred in the presence of supervisory employees. In this connection see American Mann- facturing Company , et al. and Textile Workers Organizing Committee, C. I. 0., 5 N. L. R. B. 443, aff'd. National Labor Relations Board v . American Manufacturing Co., 106 F. (2d) 61 (C. C. A. 2). It is plain that Holt was regarded by the employees as being closely identified with the respondent, and believed by them to represent the wishes of the respond- ent. Moreover, the respondent did not disavow Molt's activities . We find that by per- mitting Holt' s anti-union meetings , statements , and acts on the respondent's time and. property, with the knowledge of and in the presence of supervisory officials, the respondent acquiesced in and ratified his conduct and is responsible for it. STANDARD HAT COMPANY 889 stressed the "happy family" relationship which would exist between them if freed from the interference of a labor organization.7 In the letters and notice of November 3, 1938, he emphasized the lack of necessity for employees to belong to a labor organization to retain their jobs and in the notice of January 1939, he stressed their privilege to renounce their affiliation with a labor organization if they already had affiliated . Statements of an employer, such as were made here, which emphasize the privilege of employees not to join or, having joined, to withdraw from a. labor organization, without giving equal emphasis to the positive rights of the employees secured to them under the Act, constitute an unfair labor practice.8 We find that the respondent, by the acts above set forth, has inter- fered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor or- ganizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining and other mutual aid or protection, as. guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the respondent, set forth in Section III above, occurring in connection with the operations of the respondent de- scribed in Section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing 'commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE- REMEDY We have found that the respondent warned its employees against joining the United and urged their withdrawal therefrom, and that it otherwise engaged in unfair labor practices. To remedy this unlawful conduct, the respondent will be ordered to cease and desist from such practices and to post appropriate notices to that effect. ° See Matter of Art Crayon, Inc. and its affiliated company, American Artists Color Works, Inc. and United Artists Supply Workers, 7 N. L. It. B . 102 ; Matter of Williams Manufacturing Company, Portsmouth, Ohio, and United Shoe Workers of America , Ports- mouth, Ohio, 6 N . L. R. B. 135 ; Matter of Hyman S . Levy, doing business under the style and trade name of Harris Woolen Mills Co . and Local No. 15 of the Textile Workers Organ- izing Committee, affiliated with the C. I. 0., 11 N. L. It. B. 964; Matter of Maryland Distillery, Inc. and Distillery Workers Union 20270, 3 N. L. It. B . 176; Matter of Sunshine' Mining Company and International Union of Mine, Mill, and Smelter Workers, 7 N. L. R. B.. 1252. 8 See Matter of Nebel Knitting Company, Inc . and American Federation of Hosiery Work- ers, 6 N . L. It. B. 284 , enf'd . as mod . 103 F. ( 2d) 594 (C. C. A. 4) ; Matter of Mansfield Mills, Inc . and Textile Workers Organizing Committee, 3 N. L. It . B. 901. 890 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD VI. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION On October 8 and 11, 1938, the United asked the respondent to recognize it as the collective bargaining representative of its em- ployees. The respondent stated that it did not believe that the United represented a majority of its employees, and refused to so recognize the United. The respondent indicated a willingness to bargain with the United if a comparison of the employees' signa- tures on United membership cards with the employees' signatures on the respondent's pay roll showed that the United represented a majority of employees. The United, however, refused to disclose its membership cards on the ground that it might lead to discrimination against the employees. We find that a question has arisen concerning the representation of employees of the respondent. VII. 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 respond- ent 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. VIII. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT The United contends that a unit consisting of all the respondent's production employees, excluding the plant superintendent, inspectors, foremen and foreladies, machinist, floor boys, porters, shipping- department employees, and clerical and office help, is a unit appropri- ate for the purpose of collective bargaining. The respondent claims that all its employees, whether or not engaged in production, consti- tute the appropriate unit. The nature of the work of the office and clerical help, porters, ship- ping-department employees, foremen and foreladies, plant superin- tendent, inspectors, and machinist, is not in dispute. They are either non-production or supervisory employees. We have frequently held that such employees may be excluded from a unit appropriate for the purpose of collective bargaining. In addition, the only union involved here desires their exclusion. We will, therefore, exclude these employees from the unit." The nature of the work of other employees is in dispute, and requires further consideration. 9 At the time of the first hearing in the representation case, these employees were as follows : Harry Cohen , C. F. Reeves, L. Rector, Jean Wallen, 0. T. Brown , T. E. Dance, D. R. Hubbard, Max Perlman, Lewis Wilford, Crharlie Good. Luther Hamm, John Lumpkin, Julius Iilarin , C. J. Hogan, R. J. Holt, Sarah Burnett, and Mrs. Garrison. STANDARD HAT C01\1PANY 891 The United wishes to exclude Anne Crumbley and Cora Mae Hayes from the unit on the ground that they are supervisors. Although the respondent disputes their supervisory status, the evidence shows that these employees are paid on a weekly basis while other produc- tion employees are paid by the hour. They distribute work to the employees, occasionally inspect finished work, and train new workers. Their work is of a supervisory nature and they will be excluded from the unit. The United claims that Clarence Wilson, Fred Mitchell, T. W. Allgood, James Walker, Fred Richardson, and Leroy McCullough are floor boys and should be excluded from the unit because they are not production workers. The respondent contends that they are produc_ tion workers. The evidence shows, however, that although they occa- sionally engage in production, much of the work they do is of a miscellaneous character, such as handing out racks, writing out tickets, filling orders, and working in the shipping department. They are not eligible for membership in the,United. We shall exclude them from the unit. The United also wishes to exclude from the unit extra em- ployees and apprentices. Since they are production workers, and the United offered no valid reason for their exclusion, they will be included in the unit.10 We find that the respondent's production employees, excluding the plant superintendent, inspectors, foremen and foreladies, machinist, floor boys, porters, shipping-department employees, and office and clerical help, but including extra help and apprentices, constitute a unit appropriate for the purpose of collective bargaining, and that , said, unit will' insure to- employees of the respondent the full, benefit of the right to self-organization and to collective bargaining and otherwise effectuate the policies of the Act. IX. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES The United introduced in evidence the membership cards of 49 employees in an appropriate unit consisting of 84 employees, in order to show that a majority of the respondent's employees within such unit had designated the,United as their representative for the purpose of collective bargaining. The organizer for the United 10.See Matter of Floyd A. Fridell, individually and trading as Carolina Marble & Granite Workers and Granite Cutters' International Association of America, Charlotte Branch, 11 N. L. R. B. 249 ; Matter of Century Mills, Inc. and South. Jersey Joint Board of the International Ladies Garment Workers Union (Learners ), 5 N. L. R. B. 807; Matter of Armour & Company and Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North Amer- ica, Local No. 235,' 10 N. L. R. B . 912; Matter of Southern California Gas Company and Utility Workers Organizing Committee, Local No . 132, 10 N. L. R. B. 13.23; Matter of The Douglas Aircraft Co., Inc., El Segundo Division and United Aircraft Welders of America (Independent ), 16 N. L. R. B. 93. 892 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD testified, without contradiction, that each of the 49 employees signed the membership cards in her presence after she explained fully their significance. Almost all of the membership cards were signed in the 2 months preceding the November hearing. Six employees, called as witnesses for the respondent, testified that they wished to with- draw their memberships from the United. It was stipulated by the parties that six other employees would also so testify. Notwithstand- ing the testimony of the employees that they withdrew from the United voluntarily, the validity of the defections under the circum- stances here present is patently questionable, since, as we have found in Section III, above, for a period of about a month preceding the November hearing, the respondent interfered with its employees' right to self-organization and encouraged its employees to withdraw from membership in the United. However, in view of the length of time which has elapsed since the date of the first hearing, and in accordance with our practice,1' we conclude that the question which has arisen concerning the representation of employees of, the respond- ent can best be resolved by means of an election by secret ballot. Since the respondent has, by engaging in various unfair labor prac- tices, interfered with the exercise by its employees of the rights guaranteed them by the Act, we shall not now set the date for the election. We shall hold the election, however, upon receipt of infor- mation from the Regional Director that the circumstances permit a free choice of representatives unaffected by the respondent's unlaw- ful acts. We shall, at the time we specify the date on which the election is to be held, also specify the date on the basis of which eligibility to vote in the election shall be determined. Upon the basis of the above findings of fact, and the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. United Hatters, Cap & Millinery Workers International Union, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 2. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act. 3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. "Matter of Cudahy Packing Company and United Packinghouse Workers of America, Local No. 21, etc., 13 N. L. it. B. 526; Matter of Armour ct Company and United Packing- ,house Workers, Local Industrial Union No. 11, etc., 13 N. L. it. B. 567. STANDARD HAT COMPANY 893 . 4. A question affecting commerce has arisen concerning the repre- sentation of employees of Standard Hat Company, Atlanta, Georgia, within the meaning of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 5. All production employees of the respondent, excluding the plant superintendent, inspectors, foremen and foreladies, machinist, floor boys, porters, shipping-department employees, and office. and clerical help, but including extra help and apprentices, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining, within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. ORDER Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the respondent Standard Hat Company, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns shall : 1. Cease and desist from : (a) In any manner discouraging membership in United Hatters, Cap & Millinery Workers International Union or any other labor organization of its employees. (b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its emloyees in the exercise of the rights to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in con- certed activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mu- tual aid or protection as guaranteed in Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act : (a) Immediately post notices to its employees in conspicuous places throughout its plant and maintain such notices for a period of at least sixty (60) consecutive days from the date of posting, stating that the respondent will cease and desist in the manner set forth in 1 (a) and (b) ; (b) Notify the Regional Director for the Tenth Region, in writing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what steps the respondent has taken to comply herewith. 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 Rela- tions Act, 49 Stat. 449, and pursuant to Article III, Section 8, of 894 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 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 the purposes of collective bargaining with Standard Hat Company, Atlanta, Georgia, an election by secret ballot shall be conducted at such time as the Board shall hereafter direct, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Tenth Region, acting in this matter as agent for the National Labor Relations Board, and subject to Article III, Section 8, of said Rules and Regulations, among the production employees of the Standard Hat Company, employed by said respondent during a pay- roll period which the Board shall in the future specify, but exclud- ing the plant superintendent, inspectors, foremen and foreladies, machinist, floor boys, porters, shipping-department employees, and office and clerical help, and including extra help and apprentices, to determine whether or not they desire to be represented by United Hatters, Cap & Millinery Workers International Union, for the pur- poses of collective bargaining.