Cluett, Peabody & Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 26, 1964

147 N.L.R.B. 829 (N.L.R.B. 1964)

ARROW CO., A DIV. OF CLUETT, PEABODY. & CO., INC. 829
tion engineering division,' but excluding office clericals and other. em-
ployees,7 guards, firemen, chauffeur -uardsl--, and all supervisors' as
defined in the Act. ..
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
6 As more fully set out by the parties in Employer 's Exhibits Nos. 27 and 27-A which was
stipulated to by the parties.
7 As more fully set forth in Employer 's Exhibits Nos. 26 and 26-A which was stipulated
to by the parties.
The Arrow Company, a Division of Cluett, Peabody & Co., Inc:
and Local Union No. 445, International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, Chauffeurs,. Warehousemen and Helpers of America,
Petitioner . Case No. 2-IBC-13098. June 26, 1964
DECISION ON REVIEW AND ORDER
On December 31, 1963, the Regional Director for the Second Region
issued a Decision and Direction of Election in the above-entitled pro-
ceeding, directing a self-determination election in a voting group of
employees at the. Employer's Chester, New York, warehouse. There-
after, in accordance with Section 102.67 of the Board's Rules and
Regulations, as amended, the Employer and the Intervenor, Amalga-
mated Clothing Workers of America, AFL-CIO, filed with the Board
timely requests for review of the Regional Director's Decision on the
grounds that he departed from officially reported Board precedents.
The Petitioner filed a statement in opposition to the Employer's re-
quest for review.
On January 23, 1964, the Board, by telegraphic order, granted the
requests for review and stayed the election pending its decision on
review. On February 4, 1964, the Employer filed a notice of motion
for leave to file annexed affidavit, which affidavit it requested be made
part of the record. Thereafter, on February 17, 1964, the Board
issued an Order reopening the record and remanding proceeding to
Regional Director for further hearing, for the purpose of adducing
evidence with respect to the matters contained in the Employer's
motion and the affidavit attached thereto, and any other matters beat-
ing on the issues occurring since the original hearing.
On March 5, 1964, pursuant to such Order,' a further hearing was
held before Hearing Officer -Robert E. Harding. The I-Iearing Of-
ficer's rulings wade, at the.reoperied hearing are free from prejudicial
error and are hereby affirmed. - -
1 The name of the Employer appears as amended at the reopened hearing.
147 NLRB No. 98.
830 DECISIONS ' OF NATIONAL LABOR - RELATIONS BOARD'-
-,.Pursuant to the'provisions'of 'Section 3(b) of the'National Labor
Relatioils-Act, the Board has-delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Mem-
bers Leedom and Brown].
The Board has-considered the entire record in this case, with respect
to the. issues under review,, including ;the positions of the'parties set
forth' in their statements and briefs, and makes the following findings.
The Petitioner seeks an election' in a unit of warehouse employees
at the Employer's new Chester warehouse. The Employer and the
Intervenor oppose this request on the ground, inter alia, that the
Chester warehouse, when in full Operation, will be it mere relocation
and consolidation of the Employer's Troy, New York, and Garfield,
New Jersey, warehouses and, for this reason, their contract including
the latter two warehouses in its coverage operates as a bar. The
Regional Director found that the Chester warehouse is a new
operation.
-The Employer manufactures and sells men's furnishings and ladies'
blouses and skirts, and as part of its operations maintains a number
of warehouses located in different parts of the United States. The
Intervenor for a number of years has represented employees at all but
the- Employer's San Francisco, California, regional warehouse, whose
employees are represented by. a sister local of the Petitioner. The
latest contract between the Employer and the Intervenor, which ex-
tended the term of their previous contract from June 1, 1962, to
September 1, 1965, covers the Troy and Garfield warehouse employees.
. The Employer states that in early 1963 it decided to relocate its
Troy and Garfield warehouse operations and consolidate them in a
new warehouse at Chester, 40 miles from Garfield. The Chester ware-
house began operations on a limited basis on November 11, 1963.
Prior to the opening, 16 employees had been hired to work in the new
warehouse and commuted daily to the Garfield warehouse for train-
ing purposes. As of the time of the initial hearing on December 11,
1963, 26 employees had been hired to work at Chester. The later hires
received some of their training at Garfield and the rest at Chester.
At that time, no nonsupervisory warehouse employees had transferred
from Garfield or Troy to the Chester warehouse.2 However, agree-
ments had been reached between the Intervenor and the Employer,
oral as to Garfield and written as to 'Troy warehouse employees, giv-
ing them an option to transfer to the Chester warehouse, and relating,
to their rights, at the time the warehouse where they were employed
2 One supervisory warehouse employee had transferred from Troy to become the manager
at Chester. -
ARROW CO., A DM_ OF CLUETT,' PEABODY & CO., INC. 831
was closed down. Also, the terms of the existing contract between
the Intervenor and the Employer were applied to the employees hired
for the Chester warehouse.
In January 1964, the Garfield warehouse closed down and all the
equipment and the- 24 warehouse employees were transferred to
Chester. As of the date of the reopened hearing, 21 of the 26 em-
ployees first hired for the Chester warehouse were still employed and
28 additional new employees were added to the Chester warehouse
complement. Also, five warehouse employees had been transferred
from Troy to Chester where they were assigned as working instruc-
tors 3 Finally, since the earlier hearing, two Garfield supervisors
have transferred to Chester, one Troy supervisor has transferred, and
another plans to transfer to Chester when the Troy warehouse closes
down. The Employer now operates the Troy warehouse with 45 em-
ployees and plans to close it down on or about June 21, 1964, at which
time the equipment will be transferred to Chester, together with those
employees who have exercised an option to transfer.
Thus, at the present time, there are 78 nonsupervisory warehouse
employees employed at the Chester warehouse, 45 of whom either were
employed or received training at the Garfield warehouse and 5 of
whom are from the Troy warehouse and have as yet not exercised an
option to transfer to the Troy manufacturing plant.
Upon the foregoing record facts, we find, in agreement with the
Employer and the Intervenor, that the Chester warehouse, in its
present state of operations, and as planned when the Troy warehouse is
closed, is merely a relocation and consolidation of the Employer's
warehouse facilities at Garfield and Troy. Further, as the Intervenor
is the incumbent contractual representative for the former Garfield
warehouse and for the. Troy warehouse employees, and as we are satis-
fied that a considerable proportion of the warehouse employees at Gar-
field and Troy will have been transferred to Chester when the
relocation and consolidation is complete, we conclude that the existing
contract. covering Troy and Garfield warehouse employees and applied
to Chester warehouse employees is a bar to the petition herein.' Ac-
cordingly, we shall dismiss the petition.'
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
3 The record indicates that these five employees still have an option to return ' to Troy
for employment in the Employer 's manufacturing operations there located.
* See General Extrusion Company, Inc., General Bronze Alwintite Products Corp., 121
NLRB 1165; see also South -East Coal Company, 138 NLRB 562.
5In view of our dismissal of the petition on this ground, we need not reach other issues
raised in the Employer 's request for review.