Henrietta Mills

In the Matter Of HENRIETTA MILLS ( HENRIETTA PLANT ) and UNITED TEXTILE WORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL #2081 Case No. R-1898.-Decided July 9, 1940 Jurisdiction : textile manufacturing industry. Investigation and Certification of Representatives : existence of question: -re- fusal to accord recognition to union ; election necessary. Unit Appropriate for Collective Bargaining : production and maintenance em- ployees excluding supervisory and clerical employees; no controversy as to. Mr. Oscar J. Mooneyham, of Forest City, N. C., for the Company: Mr. John W. Pollard, and Mr. Gordon L. Chastain, of Spartan- burg, S. C., and Mr. Herbert Thatcher, of Washington, D. C., for the Union. - Mr. Malcolm A. Hoffmann, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION STATEMENT OF THE CASE On March 26, 1940, United Textile Workers of America, Local #2081, filed with the Regional Director for the Fifth Region (Bal- timore, Maryland) a petition alleging that a question affecting com- merce had arisen concerning the representation of employees at the Henrietta, North Carolina, plant of Henrietta Mills,' herein called the Company, and requesting an investigation and certification of representatives pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Rela- tions Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. On May 6, 1940, 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 Regu- lations-Series 2, as amended, ordered an investigation and author- ized the Regional Director to conduct it and to provide for an appropriate hearing upon due notice. On May 16, 1940, the Regional Director issued a notice of hearing, copies of which were duly served upon the Company and the Union. Pursuant thereto a hearing was held on June 17, 1940, at Rutherford- ton, North Carolina, before Charles Y. Latimer, the Trial Examiner IL Incorrectly designated as Henrietta Cotton Mills (Martel Mills) in the petition. 25 N. L. R. B., No. 29. 254 HENRIETTA MILLS 255 duly designated by the Board. The Company was represented by counsel and the Union by its representatives, and all participated in the hearing. Full'opportunity to be heard, to examine, and cross- examine witnesses and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues 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. Pursuant to notice, a hearing for the purpose of oral argument was held before the Board on June 27, 1940, in Washington, D. C. The Company and the Union were represented by counsel and par- ticipated. Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY Henrietta Mills, incorporated in 1887, is engaged in the manufac- turing of print cloth and textiles at Henrietta, North Carolina. The Company also operates similar plants at Caroleen, North Carolina, and Cherokee Falls, South Carolina, where it employs approximately 1,000 employees. The Company obtains raw materials from six States other than North Carolina. Its products are sold by agents in the following principal cities: San Francisco, Boston, New York, St. Louis, and Philadelphia. More than 50 per cent of the Company's raw mate- rials and finished products cross State lines. At the time of the hear- ing, the Company employed at its Henrietta plant approximately 390 employees, of whom 379 were production and maintenance employees. II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED United Textile Workers of America, Local #2081, is a labor organ- ization affiliated with the American Federation of Labor. It admits to membership production and maintenance employees of the Com- pany, excluding supervisory and clerical employees. III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION During the month of March 1940, after a charter had been issued to the Union and an organizational campaign instituted, which resulted in the Union's obtaining authorization cards from a majority of the Com- pany's employees,, Union Representative Gordon Chastain, together with a committee of employees, conferred with the Company's superin- tendent, one Timmerman, and an unidentified representative of the Company in an effort to secure union recognition. Timmerman stated that, whereas he would hear grievances from individual workers, he 256 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Would not grant recognition to the Union, and that it was the policy of the Company to deal with individuals rather than the Union. Tim- merman also refused to consent to an election to determine whether or not the Union represented a majority of the Company's employees. Shortly after this meeting took place, the petition herein was filed. We find that a question has arisen concerning the representation of the 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 -^Vith the operations of the Company described in Section I above, has a close, intimate, and substantial rela- tion 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 The Union contends that the production and maintenance employees of the Company, excluding clerical and supervisory employees, consti- tute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining. The Company presented no testimony to indicate that the unit sought is inappropriate. We find that all production and maintenance employees of the Com- pany, at its Henrietta plant, excluding supervisory and clerical em- ployees, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bar- gaining, and that said unit will insure to the employees of the Company the full benefit of their right to self-organization and collective bar- gaining and will otherwise effectuate the policies of the Act. VI. THE DETERMINATION OF-REPRESENTATIVES The Union asserts that it represents a majority of the employees in the appropriate unit, and the Regional Director filed a statement at the hearing to the effect that the Union had presented authorization cards representing 235 of the Company's employees in the appropriate unit. We find that the question concerning representation which has arisen can best be resolved by an election by secret ballot, and we shall direct the holding of such an election. Neither the Union nor the Company expressed a preference as to the date governing eligibility to vote in such election. In accordance with our usual practice, we find that those eligible to vote in the election shall be the employees in the appropriate unit who are employed by the Company at its Henrietta, North Caro- lina, plant during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of our Direction of Election herein, including employees who did not HENRIETTA MILLS 257 work during such pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation, and employees who were then or shall have since been temporarily laid off, but excluding those who shall have since quit or been dis- charged for cause. Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire =•ecord 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 Henrietta Mills, Henrietta, North Carolina, within the meaning of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the -National Labor Relations Act. 2. All production and maintenance employees of the Company at its Henrietta, North Carolina, plant, excluding supervisory and clerical employees, 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 Rela- tions Act, and pursuant to Article III, Section 8, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 2, as amended, it is hereby DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation ordered by the Board to ascertain representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Henrietta Mills (Henrietta plant), Henrietta, North Carolina, an elec- tion by secret ballot shall be conducted as early as possible but not later than thirty (30) days from the date of this Direction of Election, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Fifth Region, acting in the matter as agent for the National Labor Relations Board, and subject to Article III, Section 9, of said Rules and Regulations, among all production and maintenance employees at the Henrietta, North Carolina, plant of the Company who Were employed during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of this Direction of Election, including employees who did not work during that period because they were ill or on vacation, and em- ployees who were then and shall have since been temporarily laid off, but excluding supervisory and clerical employees, and those who shall have since quit or been discharged for cause, to determine whether or not they desire to be represented by United Textile Workers of America, Local #2081, for the purposes of collective bargaining. Mr. WILLIAM M. LEISERSON took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Direction of Election.