Brighton Mills, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 26, 1951

97 N.L.R.B. 774 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

774 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tion be held at such time as the Regional Director advises the Board
that an election may appropriately be held.
Order
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the election held on October 17, 1951,
among the employees of the International Shoe Company at its Olney,
Illinois, plant be, and it hereby is, set aside.
BRIGHTON MILLS, INC. and TEXTILE WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, CIO,
PETITIONER . Case No. 10-11C-4565. December 26,1951
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 John S. Patton,
hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing
are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel [Members Houston, Reynolds, and Styles].
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 certain
employees of the Employer.
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 appropriate unit :
The Petitioner seeks to represent all the production and maintenance
employees at the Employer's Shannon, Georgia, plant. The Employer
claims that the employees at its Forsyth, Georgia, plant should
be included in the unit. The two plants are approximately 150 miles
apart. There is no interchange of employees. The employees at
the Forsyth plant are paid less for comparable work than the employees
at the Shannon plant. Each plant has separate immediate super-
vision. Although the records for both plants are kept at the Shannon
plant and almost the entire output of raw materials at the Forsyth
plant is sold to the Shannon plant, we find under all the circumstances,
that the unit may appropriately be limited to employees of the
Shannon plant.'
The office clerical employees. The Petitioner seeks to exclude
these employees from the unit, whereas the Employer seeks to include
I Harms Hosiery Inc., 91 NLRB 330; Telechron, Inc., 90 NLRB 91.
97 NLRB No. 131.
BRIGHTON. MILLS, INC. 775
them. These employees work in an office, and are separately super-
vised by the office manager, and are salaried in contrast to the hourly
paid production and maintenance employees. Under these circum-
stances, we find that the interests of the office clerical employees differ
from those of the production and maintenance employees, and we shall
therefore adhere to our usual policy of excluding the office clerical
employees from the production and maintenance unit.2
The time-study men. The Petitioner seeks to exclude these em-
ployees from the unit, whereas the Employer seeks to include them.
The time-study men time the various operations at the mill and tabulate
the result of these studies. They do not develop standards or make
recommendations concerning the work performance of individual
employees. They are trained on the job and have no prior time-
study experience or training. They are salaried. In view of their
close working contacts with the production and maintenance em-
ployees, we find that the time-study men should be included in the
unit.3
The mail man. The mail man delivers to the various departments
in the plant. He is hourly paid. Because of his constant contact
with the production and maintenance employees, we shall include
him in the unit despite the Petitioner's contention to the contrary.
The truck drivers. The Petitioner seeks to exclude truck drivers
from the unit while the Employer seeks to include them. The Em-
ployer employs several truck drivers to haul materials from one part
of the plant to another and between its Forsyth and Shannon plants.
The truck drivers are part of the traffic and warehouse department,
which is under the supervision of the traffic manager. As the interests
of these truck drivers seem to coincide with those of the other ware-
house and traffic employees, whom the Petitioner seeks to represent,
and as at present no other labor organization seeks to represent the
truck drivers in a separate unit, we shall include them in the unit .4
The apprentices. The Employer employs a group of apprentices
which it seeks to include in the unit while the Petitioner seeks to ex-
clude them. Some of these apprentices are selected from plant per-
sonnel; others are college graduates selected from the outside. The
apprentices are selected for the purpose of training for managerial
positions in the plant. For this purpose they are rotated from one
department to another to familiarize them with the operations of all
departments. While thus rotating, the apprentices perform the reg-
ular work of the employees of the department to which they are as-
signed. However, they are not paid the same hourly rates as the
production and maintenance employees with whom they work, but
1 National Cash Register Company, 95 NLRB 27.
3 Aragon-Baldwin Mills, Inc., 80 NLRB 1042.
4 Tell City Furniture Company, Inc ., &8 NLRB 284.
776 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
receive a salary. Under these circumstances, we find that the inter-
ests of the apprentices are more closely allied with those of manage-
ment than with those of the rank-and-file employees. Accordingly,
we shall exclude the apprentices from the unit.5
The fixers. The Petitioner claims that the fixers in the spinning,
winding, twisting, carding, and requilling departments are super-
visors within the meaning of the Act, and as such should be excluded
from the unit. All the parties agree that the fixers in the weaving
department are not supervisors within the meaning of the Act, and
the Employer contends that none of the fixers have supervisory
authority. As the evidence is conflicting, we are unable to determine
from the present record whether the fixers whose status is disputed
are supervisors within the meaning of the Act. Accordingly, we
shall permit them to vote subject to challenge. In the event that the
counting of the challenged ballots will effect the outcome of the elec-
tion, a further investigation will be conducted to determine their
supervisory status.
The top ticket man in the weave department, the electrician fore-
man, and the head storekeeper. The Petitioner contends that these
individuals are supervisors and should therefore be excluded from
the unit. The Employer contends that they have no supervisory
authority. It appears from the record that these individuals assign
work to employees, who work under their direction. Under these
circumstances, we find that the top ticket man in the weave depart-
ment, the electrician foreman and the head storekeeper are super-
visors within the meaning of the Act and we shall therefore exclude
them from the unit.
The first line card clother, the top ticket man in the cloth room, the
day shift humidifier man, and the water operators. As the record
contains no evidence to support the Petitioner's contention that these
employees are supervisors within the meaning of the Act, and as the
Employer claims that they exercise no supervisory authority, we
find that the first line card clother, the top ticket man in the cloth
room, the day shift humidifier man, and the water operators are not
supervisors within the meaning of the Act. We shall therefore
include them in the Act.
Accordingly, we find that all production and maintenance em-
ployees at the Employer's Shannon, Georgia, plant, including time-
study men, the mail man, truck drivers, fixers,' the first line card
clother, the top ticket man in the cloth room, the day shift humidifier
S. H. Kress & Company, Store No. 7, 94 NLRB No. 161; United States Gypsum Com-
pany , 95 NLRB No. 128.
6 For the reasons set forth above, the inclusion of the fixers is not to be taken as a
final determination of their status as supervisors , but solely for the purpose of permitting
them to vote.
COLUMBUS-CELINA COACH LINES 777
man, the doorman,7 but excluding the office clerical employees, ap-
prentices, guards, professional employees, the top ticket man in the
weave department, the electrician foreman, the head storekeeper, the
traffic manager, the head purchasing agent," and all other supervisors,
constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargain-
ing within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.] -
4 The record shows that the Employer employes a doorman who spends about one-third
of his time as a watchman and the remainder performing janitorial work. Under these
circumstances , we find that the doorman is not a guard within the meaning of the Act,
and therefore , have included in the unit . Sylvania Electric Products Inc., 89 NLRB 398.
8 The Employer admitted that the traffic manager and the head purchasing agent were
supervisors.
HAZEL M. CLUFF , AN INDIVIDUAL , D/B/A COLUMBUS-CELINA COACH
LINES , AND COLUMBUS -MARYSVILLE Bus COMPANY , A CORPORATION
and TRUCK DRIVERS UNION LOCAL No. 413, INTERNATIONAL BROTHER-
HOOD OF TEAMSTERS , CHAUFFEURS , WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF
AMERICA , A. F. L., PETITIONER . Case No. 9-BC 1290. December
88,1951
Decision and Direction of Election
Upon-a petition duly filed a hearing was held before Robert Cohn,
hearing officer. The hearing officer's ruling made at the hearing are
free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Reynolds and Styles].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer moved to dismiss the instant petition alleging that
the two Employers named above are not the joint employers of the
employees involved in this proceeding, that the companies whether
considered individually or together are not subject to the Board's
jurisdiction, and that in any event it would not effectuate the policies
Of the Act to assert jurisdiction in this case.
Hazel M. Cluff operates the Columbus-Celina Coach Lines as an
individual proprietorship. She also owns all the stock in the Colum-
bus-Marysville Bus Company, an Ohio corporation, the other company
involved herein. Her son, John C. Cluff, is the general manager of
the Columbus-Celina Coach Line and the assistant treasurer of the
Columbus-Marysville Line.
Both companies share the same offices and the office employees of
both Employers receive the same rate of pay. At this same address,
97 NLRB No. 132.