Proximity Manufacturing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 9, 1944

54 N.L.R.B. 1179 (N.L.R.B. 1944)

In the Matter of PROXIMITY MANUFACTURING COMPANY and MACHINE
PRINTERS BENEFICIAL ASSOCIATION OF THE UNITED STATES
Case No. 5-R-1382.-Decided February 9, 194t
Messrs. L. P. McLendon and T. H. Brooks, of Greensboro, N. C.,
for the Company.
Mr. Eric W. Lindberg, of Cranston, R. I., and Mr. Joseph F. Cas-
tiello, of Washington, D. C., for the Union.
Mr. Joseph E. Gubbins, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon petition duly filed by Machine Printers Beneficial Association
of the United States, herein called the Union, alleging that a question
affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation of em-
ployees of Proximity Manufacturing Company, Greensboro, North
Carolina, herein called the Company, the National Labor Relations
Board provided for an appropriate hearing upon due notice before
Robert A. Levett, Trial Examiner. Said hearing was held at Greens-
boro, North Carolina, on September 27, 1943: On December 22, 1943,
pursuant to Board order and upon due notice a further hearing was
held at Greensboro, North Carolina, before Robert A. Levett, Trial
Examiner, for the purpose of adducing additional evidence. At both
hearings the Company and the Union appeared, participated, and
were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-
examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues.
The Trial Examiner 's rulings made at the hearings are free from
prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. All parties were afforded
an 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
Proximity Manufacturing Company is engaged in the manufac-
turing and processing of cotton goods, consisting of denims, herring-
54 N. L. R. B., No. 181.
1179
1180 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
bone twills, khakis, and various print fabrics. The Company oper-
ates four plants, Proximity Cotton Mills, White Oak Cotton Mills,
and Proximity Print Works, at Greensboro, and Granite Finishing
Works at Haw River, North Carolina. Proximity Print Works at
Greensboro, North Carolina, is the only plant directly involved in
this proceeding. A substantial portion of the raw materials used
by the Company at this plant originates outside North Carolina. At
this plant the Company annually finishes products, valued at approxi-
mately $12,000,000, over 90 percent of which is shipped outside North
Carolina. The Company admits that it is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Machine Printers Beneficial Association of the United States is
an unaffiliated labor organization admitting to membership employees
of the Company.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
On or about August 30, 1943, the Union requested recognition as
the exclusive bargaining agent for the employees involved herein
but the Company refused to grant such recognition unless and until
the Union was certified by the Board.
A statement prepared by the Regional Director, introduced in evi-
dence, indicates that the Union represents a substantial number of
employees in the unit hereinafter found to be appropriate.,
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning
the representation of employees of the Company, within the mean-
ing of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The Union requests a unit comprised of all machine printers em-
ployed in the printing department of the Proximity Print Works,
including journeymen and apprentices, but excluding all other su-
pervisory employees above the rank of foremen. The Company takes
the position that a unit smaller than plant-wide is inappropriate. Al-
ternatively, it asserts that if the Union's request is found to be ap-
propriate, foremen and assistant foremen should be excluded from
the unit.
The Company contends that the history of collective bargaining
in the plant has determined the appropriateness of a plant-wide unit.
'The Regional Director 's statements shows that the Union submitted 11 authorization
cards, all of which were dated in August 1943, and all of which bear apparently genuine
signatures and names of persons listed on the Company's pay roll of September 14, 1943 ;
there are 13 employees in the appropriate unit.
PROXIMITY MANUFACTURING COMPANY 1181
In support of its contention, the Company refers to two prior pro-
ceedings before the Board involving the employees of the Proximity
Print Works. In the first case,2 the petitioner was certified as the
bargaining representative of the production and maintenance em-
ployees, but no collective bargaining agreement resulted therefrom.
In the second case,3 decided approximately 3 years later, the Board
directed an election among the same employees; the petitioner lost
the election. There has been no collective bargaining since that date.
No issue was ever raised in the foregoing cases with respect to the
establishment of a separate unit composed of machine printers and,
since there has been no intervening history of collective bargaining
on the basis of an industrial unit, there is nothing to deter the Board
from making a de novo determination as to the propriety of a unit
smaller in scope 4 The Company, in further support of its conten-
tion, asserts that since all employees of the printing department are
hired, supervised, and paid in the same manner,, they are subject to
the same rules and regulations of the Company that govern all other
employees, and that because of the indispensable nature of their
work, they are an integral part of the production system. The rec-
ord establishes that machine printers are not only highly skilled,
but that the nature of their work is such that other employees in the
plant cannot successfully duplicate their operations. The history of
the Union shows that it has rigidly adhered to its traditional craft
lines; it does not admit to membership or seek to represent any em-
ployees except those who have met the qualifications and strict ap-
prenticeship standards of the trade. The Company admits that the
wages of the employees involved are substantially higher than those
of any other group of production employees and that there is no
interchange of employees between the printing department and other
departments of the Company. We find that the machine printers
constitute an appropriate bargaining unit.
The record shows that there is a foreman and an assistant foreman
in the printing department, regarding whose disposition the parties
are in conflict. In support of its assertion with respect to the inclusion
of these supervisory employees, the Union introduced substantial
evidence pertaining to oral and written collective bargaining agree-
ments which it has had for many years with most of the textile printing
companies in the United States. Such evidence establishes that the
Union has traditionally represented for purposes of collective bargain-
ing not only machine printers but also the foremen and assistant
foremen of such employees. The Company relies on The Maryland
8 Matter o f Proximity Prtnt Works, 7 N L. R. B 803
3 Matter of Proximity Manufacturing Company, 50 N L. R B. 90.
Matter of Kentucky Fluorspar Company, 52 N. L. R. B. 227.
1182 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Drydock case 5 to support its contention as to the exclusion of super-
visory employees from the unit. However, the majority of the Board
stated in that case, that it recognized the fact that the practice of
various craft unions, notably in the printing and maritime trades, has
been to admit foremen to membership and to include them under collec-
tive agreements, and that such practice warranted an exception to the
policy regarding supervisory employees therein adopted by the Board.
Accordingly, we shall for the same reason include them in the unit
hereinafter found to be appropriate s
We find that all machine printers, including journeymen and appren-
tices', foreman and assistant foreman, employed in the printing
department of the Proximity Print Works, but excluding all other
supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge,
discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or
effectively recommend such action, and all other employees, constitute
a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
We shall direct that the question concerning representation which
has arisen be resolved by an election by secret ballot among the
employees 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 National Labor
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 and Regulations-Series 3, it is hereby
DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation to ascertain representa-
tives for'the purposes of collective bargaining with Proximity Manu-
facturing Company, Greensboro, North Carolina, 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
subject to Article III, Sections 10 and 11, of said Rules and Regula-
tions, among the employees in the unit found appropriate in Section
IV, above, who were employed during the pay-roll period immediately
5 Matter of The Maryland Drydock Company , et at , 49 N. L R B 733.
6 See Matter of W. F Hall Printing Company, 51 N. L R. B . 640, and cases cited therein.
PROXIMITY MANUFACTURING COMPANY 1183
preceding 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
of the United States who present themselves in person at, the polls, but
excluding any 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 Machine
Printers Beneficial Association of the United States, unaffiliated, for
the purposes of collective bargaining.
MR. GERARD D. RnlrLY took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Direction of Election.