Martinsville Cotton Mill Co., Inc.Download PDFNational Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsAug 3, 194457 N.L.R.B. 880 (N.L.R.B. 1944) Copy Citation In the Matter of MARTINSVILLE COTTON MILL COMPANY, INC.1 and TEXTILE WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, C. I. O. Case No. 5-B-1599.-Decided August 3, 1944 Messrs. Guthrie , Pierce , and Blakeney , by Mr. W. S. Blakeney, of Charlotte , N. C., for the Company. Mr. Harold Griffiths, of Spray, N . C., for the Union. Mr. David V. Easton, of counsel to the Board. e DECISION- AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon a petition duly filed by Textile Workers Union of America, C. I. 0., herein called the Union, alleging that a question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation of employees of Martinsville Cotton Mill Company, Inc., Martinsville, Virginia, herein called the Company, the National Labor Relations Board pro- vided for an appropriate hearing upon due notice before Herman Goldberg, Trial Examiner. Said hearing-was held, at Martinsville, Virginia, on June 23, 1944. The Company and the Union appeared, participated, and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to ex- amine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues. At the hearing, the Company moved to dismiss the peti- tion. The Trial Examiner referred this motion to the Board. For reasons set forth in Section III, infra, the motion is denied. The Trial Examiner's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. All parties were afforded opportunity to file briefs with the Board. Upon, the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY Martinsville Cotton Mill Company, Inc., a Virginia Corporation, is a subsidiary of Chadwick-Hoskins Company, a North Carolina I The name of the Company is amended to read as written above in view of evidence disclosed at the hearing. 57 N. L. R. B., No. 142. 880 MARTINSVILLE COTTON MILL COMPANY, INC. corporation, and is principally engaged in the manufacture of print cloths. It operates a single plant. located in Martinsville, Virginia, with which we are concerned herein. During the year 1943, the Com- pany purchased for use at its plant raw materials, consisting primarily of coal, cotton, cotton yarn, and other items of supplies, -valued at approximately $500,000, almost all of which were obtained from points outside the, State of Virginia. 'During the same period, the Company manufactured finished products valued between $800,000 and $900,000, almost all of which were sold outside the State of Virginia. We'find that the Company is engaged in commerce within the m ean'- ing of the National Labor Relations Act. II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Textile Workers Union ' of America is a labor organization aflili-, •ated with the Congress of 'Industrial Organizations, admitting to membership employees of the Company. III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION The Company refuses to recognize the Union as the collective bar- gaining representative of its employees, and urges the dismissal of the present petition. The Company bases its position upon the following facts : On February 15, 1944, the Union filed a Petition for Investigation and' ,Certification of Representatives of the Company's employees.2 On March 1, the Company and the Union entered into a Stipulation for Certification Upon Consent Election and, pursuant thereto,, an elec- tion was held on' March 17 in which the Union was defeated. On March 29 the Union filed Objections to the election, and on April 19 the Regional Director issued his Report on Objections, recommending- that the Objections be sustained and the election voided. Thereafter, on April 24, 1944, the Company filed Exceptions to the Regional' Di'rector's Report and requested that a' hearing be held upon the Objections. On May 26, 1944, the Union requested that the Board permit it to withdraw its petition and the Objections to the election "in the hopes that- [the Union] may be able within the near future to hold another election . . . ." On May 29, 1944, the Board issued an Order Permitting Withdrawal of Petition. The Company contends, in substance, that no election should be held at the-present time because (1) it has not been given an opportunity to present evidence with respect to the Objections filed by the Union, and (2) a recent valid and decisive election had been held. We do not agree with these contentions. We are of the opinion that the subject matter s Case No. 5-R-1511. 601248-45-vol 57-57 0 i 882 DECISIONS, OF, NATIONAL LABOR % RELATIONS BOARD of objections to an election conducted in a prior -proceeding is not germane to issues raised in a new, representation proceeding. Further- more, the Union submitted, as- hereinafter indicated, a substantial number, of designations signed by employees, of the Company sub- sequent to the date of the election held in the previous proceeding.; A report of a Field, Examiner for the Board, introduced into evi- dence at the hearing, as supplemented by a statement made on the record by the Trial Examiner, indicates that,the Union`represents,a substantial number of employees in the unit hereinafter found appropriate.', We find that a question affecting commence has arisen concerning the representation of employees of the Company within the meaning of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. IV. THE APPROPRIA'l E UNIT •- t In the consent election agreement. previously referred to, the Com- pany and,the Union agreed that "all production employees [of--the Company],, including watchmen, maintenance men', truck drivers, excluding overseers, . .. second hands, office help and supervisory staff,•iind all supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the, status of em- ployees, or effectively recommend such action" constituted an appro- priate unit. In the instant proceeding, the Union seeks a unit com- prised of all production employees, except for overseers, second hands, office help, supervisory staff, watchmen, maintenance lien, and 'truck drivers. The Company urges thh the'bnly'appropriate unit is that'set forth in'the consent election agreement.5 We are of the opinion that the watchmen (who are non-nnlitar.zed), niaintenalice men, and truck drivers of the Company,, may properly 3 See Matter of Wagner Electric Corporation,, 53 N. L R B. 543. The Field Examiner reported that the Union submitted 87 designations bearing ap- parently genuine original signatures, that 84 of these cards were signed, subsequent to march 17, 1944, and 2 bore no date ; and that there are 171 employees in the appropriate unit. The Trial Examiner stated that the Union' submitted 5 additional designations` at the hearing, bearing apparently genuine original signatures, and that 1 of these, dated June 20, contained the name of a person appearing upon the Company's pay roll of February 20, 1944, the only pay roll available to him at the time he made his check. He further stated that, since the other 4 designations were alleged to be signed by employees of the Company who were engaged subsequent to February 20, 1944, he was unable to state whether or not these persons are engaged by the Company 5 The proposed unit, as contained in the petition filed in this proceeding, is similar to that in the consen t 'election agreement At the hearing, however, the Union indicated for the first time that it desired to exclude watchmen, maintenance men, and truck drivers. e The watchmen and the maintenance employees are both under the supervision of the overseer of the repair shop The truck driver, who performs miscellaneous duties in and about the plant in addition to driving the truck, also appears to be under the supervision of this overseer. MARTINSVILLE -COTTON MILL COMPANY, INC. •, 883 be included within the same unit. as production employees.7 Moreover, the Union stated at the hearing that it, would be wilyling to participate el. in an election directed among employees in the unit described' in the prior consent election agreement. Accordingly, we find that all production employees of the Company;, including watchmen, maintenance 'men, and truck drivers, but ex- cluding office help, overseers, second hands, and all other supervisory employees with authority,to hire,- promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or effectively rec- ommend such action, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of ,collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b)' of the Act. V. TIIE,DETERDfINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES We shall direct that the question concerning representation which has arisen be resolved by an election by secret ballot among the em- ployees in the appropriate unit who were employed during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of the Direction of Election herein, subject to the limitations and additions set forth in the Direction.` DIRECTION OF ELECTION By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the NationalLabor Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, and pursuant to Article III, Section 9, of National Labor Relations -Board Rules andRegulations-Series 3, as amended, it is hereby DIREC71mm that, as part of ,the-investigation to ascertain representa- tives for the purposes of collective bargaining with, Martinsville Cot- ton Mill Company, Inc., Martinsville, Virginia, an election by secret ballot shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later than thirty (30) days from the date of this Direction, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Fifth Region, acting in this matter as agent for the National Labor Relations Board, and sub- ject to Article III, Sections 10 and 11i of said Rules and Regulations among the employees in the ti-it found' appropriate in Section IV, above, who were employed during the pay-roll period inimedlateli pre- ceding the date of this Direction, including employees who did not work during said pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation or temporarily laid off, and including employees in the armed forces ' For substantially similar units, see Matter of American Woolen Company, 52 N L R B 415; Matter of Fickett -Brown Manufacturing Company , Inc,-53 N. L. R B. 106 , Matte, of P II- Hanes Knitting Coynpang , 52' N L . R B. 746; and Matter of Illinois Knitting Companif, 53 N L R B 1216 884 DECISIONS OF, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD of the United States who present themselves in person at the, polls, but excluding those employees who have since quit or been discharged for cause and have not been rehired or reinstated prior to the date of the election, to determine whether or not they desire to be represented by Textile Workers Union of America, C. I. 0., for the purposes of collec- tive_bargaining. CHAIRMAN MILLIs took no .part';i3n the consideration of the above Decision and'Direction of Election. t Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation