Rossie Velvet Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 7, 1937

3 N.L.R.B. 804 (N.L.R.B. 1937)

In the Matters of RossIE VELVET COMPANY and CHARLES B. RAYHALL
and TEXTILE WORKERS ORGANIZING COMMITTEE OF'TIIE COMMITTEE
FOR INDUSTRIAL ' ORGANIZATION
Cases Nos. R-247 and R-048.-Decided October 7,1937
Velvet Manufacturing Industry-Investigation of Representatives : contro-
versy concerning representation of employees : interference by employer with
employees ' freedom of choice in designating representatives ; failure of negotia-
tions for recognition of union as exclusive representative ; substantial doubt as
to majority status; petition for investigation and certification of representatives
filed by non -existent labor organization dismissed-Unit Appropriate for Col-
lective Bargaining : production and maintenance employees in two separate
plants operated by employer ; community of interest ; similarity of wage scales,
classes of labor, production processes , and products ; correlation of production ;
organization of business ; history of past relations between employer and em-
ployeesElection Ordered
Mr. Edmund J. Blake for the Board.
Mr. Frank R. -Wheeler, of New York City, for the Company.
Mr. Sidney L. Cahn, of Norwich, Conn., for the Union.
Mr. Charles B. Rayhall, of Willimantic, Conn., pro se.
Mr. Howard Lichtenstein, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On June 24, 1937, and July 7, 1937, respectively, Charles B. Ray-
hall and Textile Workers Organizing Committee of the Committee
for Industrial Organization, herein called the Union, each filed with
the Regional Director for the First Region (Boston, Massachusetts)
a petition alleging that a question affecting commerce had arisen
concerning the representation of production and maintenance em-
ployees of Rossie Velvet Company, herein called the Company, in its
plants at Willimantic, Connecticut, and Mystic, Connecticut. The
petition signed by Rayhall, as amended at the hearing, referred to
the employees of the Willimantic plant and was purported to have
been filed by the "Willimantic Independent Velvet Workers". (See
Section II, infra). The petition of the Union referred to the em-
ployees of both the Willimantic and Mystic plants. Both petitions
804
i`' 9
DECISIONS AND ORDERS ' 805
requested an 'investigation and -certification of representatives pur-
suant to Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat,
449, herein • called the Act. On' July 23, 1937, the National Labor
Relations Board, herein called the Board, acting pursuant to Section
9 (c) of the Act- and Article .111, Section 3 and 10 (c)' (2) of Na-
tional Labor. Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 1, as
amended, consolidated -the cases for the purposes of hearing and au-
thorized the Regional Director, to conduct an investigation and to
provide for an appropriate hearing.
Pursuant to a notice duly issued and served by the Regional
Director upon the Company, the Union, and Rayhall, a hearing was
held at. New London, Connecticut, on August 23 and 24, 1937, before
Henry J. Kent, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board.
At the hearing, the Board and the Union were represented by
counsel, the Company appeared by its treasurer, Frank R. Wheeler,
and Rayhall appeared in. his own behalf. Full opportunity, to be
heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce
evidence bearing upon the issues was afforded to all parties.. At the
conclusion of the hearing, the Union filed a brief which , we have
considered. ,
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner on
motions and objections directed to the issues, raised by the petitions
and finds that no. prejudicial errors were committed. The rulings
are hereby affirmed. At the conclusion of the hearing, counsel for
the Union moved to dismiss the petition of Rayhall in so far as it
purported to be the, petition of Willimantic Independent Velvet
Workers; ruling upon this motion was reserved by the Trial Exam-
iner., The motion will,be granted to the extent discussed herein-
after under Section II.
Upon, the entire record in the,case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE COMPANY AND ITS BUSINESS
Rossie Velvet Company was incorporated- in New Jersey in 1898.
It maintains plants- at Mystic, Connecticut, and Willimantic, Con-
necticut, where it is engaged in the manufacture of transparent
velvets. The Willimantic plant, which is 40 miles from Mystic, was
constructed in 1912 to increase the Company's production of mil-
linery velvets. In 1932 this plant was shut down. . It reopened, in
1935.
The Company. produces, approximately 1;500,000 yards of velvet
a year,, valued; at approximately $1,500,000.. Raw materials, consist-
ing principally of silk, cotton yarn, and rayon are purchased outside
the State of Connecticut. Silk is purchased from New York bro-
kers, shipped to throwsters in New Jersey and Pennsylvania where
49440-38-vol . in-52
806 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the silk fiber is twisted to specification, and finally shipped to the
Company's plants. The Company procures the greater, portion of
its cotton yarn from New York importers and from Southern and
New England cotton mills; rayon is shipped from Richmond, Vir-
ginia, and Kingsport, Tennessee. Mr. Frank R. Wheeler, treasurer
of the Company, testified that practically 100 per cent of all the
products used in the manufacture of velvet are purchased and
shipped from States other than Connecticut. '
Raw materials are delivered to the plants on spools, cones, and in
skeins, where they are prepared for weaving, woven, inspected, dyed,
patterned or finished, and shipped as transparent velvet. Both
plants have identical departments and engage in the same processes
of production, except that the velvet manufactured at Willimantic
is shipped to Mystic for dyeing and finishing. As of August 14,
1937, the Mystic plant employed 503 production and' maintenance
employees, and the Willimantic plant employed 108 similarly desig-
nated employees.
The Company sells almost the entire output of both plants through
its factor, William Oppenheim and Sons, which owns a majority
of stock in the Company. The velvet is shipped by Railway
Express on consignment to the factor, and is delivered to a ware-
house leased in New York City. All sales are made by the factor,
and shipments to customers, chiefly cloak and suit manufacturers
throughout the country, originate from the New York warehouse.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Textile Workers Organizing Committee is a labor 'organization
affiliated with the Committee for Industrial Organization and ad-
mitting to membership all production and maintenance employees,
except supervisory and clerical employees, in the textile industry.
Local 110 of the Union, which admits those employees of both the
Willimantic and Mystic plants of the Company, was organized in
1932 as the Velvet and Plush Workers Industrial Union. In June
1937, it received a certificate of affiliation from the Union.
The petition filed with the Regional Director on June 24, 1937,
and signed by Rayhall, bore the caption "Rossie Velvet Company
and Velvet and Plush Workers Association." During the hearing
the petition was amended to change the name of the Association to
"Willimantic Independent Velvet Workers."
The evidence discloses that the "Willimantic Independent Velvet
Workers" had not yet been organized at the time of the hearing.
It had no members, officers, constitution,, by-laws, membership cards,
nor provisions for the payment of initiation fees or dues. Rayhall
testified that the organization was not then in existence. The peti-
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 807
tion signed by Rayhall, in so far as it purports to be a petition of
"Willimantic Independent Velvet Workers," is hereby dismissed.
Although Rayhall was appointed to committees representing the
Willimantic employees, on various occasions during the controversy
that led to the filing of the petition in this case, it appears that he
was not authorized by any employees to represent them in this pro-
ceeding. Indeed, during the course of the hearing he abandoned any
claim to this effect. Consequently it is unnecessary to consider the
inclusion of his name on any ballot used in the election, which will
be directed, as explained below.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
In June 1937, Joseph Brill, general counsel for the Union, re-
quested Wheeler to negotiate and enter into a written contract with
the Union as the representative of the employees of both plants.
Several informal discussions ensued but the parties did not reach an
understanding or enter into any agreement. During the same month
Wheeler called meetings of the employees at each plant, advised them
that the Company had been asked to bargain with the Union, as
their representative, and that,it was incumbent upon the employees
to choose their own representative.
The formal petition filed by Rayhall on June 24, 1937, as amended,
requests an election among the employees of the Willimantic plant.
The Union's petition filed on July 7, 1937, seeks an election among
the employees of both plants as a single unit, the Union alleging that
it represents some 400 employees, including employees at both the
Willimantic and Mystic plants.
We find that since June 1937, a question concerning representa-
tion has arisen which has led to discontent and dissatisfaction among
the employees of the Willimantic and Mystic plants of the Company.
We further find that this question can only-be resolved by means
of an election by secret ballot.,
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The issue whether the employees of each plant constitute separate
units or a single unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining is resolved from an examination of the facts elicited by
Rayhall and the Union at the hearing. Rayhall, contending that
the two plants constitute separate appropriate units, laid particular
stress upon the result of an informal election held among the em-
ployees of the Willimantic plant.
On August 12, 1937, Rayhall, having assumed the chairmanship of
a meeting called by him "to decide on a very important question,"'
conducted a secret poll of the 84 Willimantic employees who attended,
I Union Exhibit No. 3.
808 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to determine whether they desired to participate jointly, in an election
with the employees of the Mystic plant. Fifty-three ballots opposed
such participation , 27 favored it, and four ballots were blank. Ray-
hall argued that the result of the poll indicated the desire of the
Willimantic employees to be considered as a unit separate and apart
from the Mystic employees.
The Union' contended that the circumstances , surrounding the meet-
ing, and the rumors current in the Willimantic plant during the
period of the controversy completely vitiated the results of the poll.
The notice of the meeting did not indicate that a vote would be taken,
nor did Rayhall explain his failure to apprise the employees of the
definite object of the meeting . We do not know whether the 31 em-
ployees who failed to attend the meeting would have been present had
they known that a vote would be taken, nor do we know whether the
result of the poll would have been different . The inadequacy of the
notice , however , throws doubt upon the validity of the result as the
reflection of the desires of all the employees.
Of greater importance in weighing the' result of the voting is the
combination of 'Company policy and rumor which prevailed in the
Willimantic plant at the time of the controversy , and which markedly
points to interference by the Company with the decision of its em-
ployees. Some months prior to the hearing the Willimantic employe,-s,
were placed on a 25-hour week shift while the less fortunate Mystic
employees worked on a 32-hour alternating week shift . The Company
claimed that it was more economical to so operate the plants , although
the Union contended that the policy of the Company was calculated
to offset the desire of the Willimantic employees to unite with the
employees of the Mystic plant. During this period also, the rumor
was current ' that the Company was , operating the Willimantic plant
in order to destroy the Union , admittedly more powerful at Mystic.
On July 7, 1937 , Rayhall , addressing a'meeting of' Willimantic em-
ployees on Company property and during working 'hours, stated, "I
know I will be criticized for it, but it has been on my chest for some
time, and I am going to say it just the same . If you people join up
with Mystic this plant may shut down *in the fall ." Under the cir-
cumstances , we cannot doubt that the Company tacitly gave its
support to this rumor.
The fact that Willimantic employees were receiving more favor-
able treatment than Mystic employees , coupled with the rumor that
their joining forces with ' the Mystic employees for the purposes of
collective bargaining meant the cessation of work in the Willimantic
plant, leads us to believe that the result of the poll does not reflect
the' genuine desire of the majority of Willimantic employees. The
evidence is persuasive that Ra'yhalIl,' with the aid of the Company,
succeeded in a course of intimidation which , we have no doubt, had
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 809
its effect upon his fellow employees., In any event, the result of this
particular poll is entitled to but little consideration in the deter-
mination of the unit appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining.
Although the plaints 'are 40 miles apart, the common nature of
the employees' problems at both pants, the close relationship be-
tween the operation's of both plants, and the character of past deal-
ings between the Company and its employees indicate that the em-
ployees of both plants constitute a single unit appropriate for the
purposes of collective bargaining. As we have noted above, since
1935 the plants have both produced the same type of velvet. Both
plants employ the same classes of labor, engage in the same processes
of production, and pay the same rates of wages for, similar opera-
tions. The entire output of the Willimantic plant is, shipped to the
Mystic plant for finishing and dyeing. One general office at Mystic
maintains the accounting records of both 'plants, and the super-
intendent of each plant reports and ,is responsible to, one general
.manager., Although employees are seldom interchanged between
the plants, there is some evidence that residents of Mystic are
employed in the Willimantic plant, and residents of Willimantic in
the Mystic plant.
That the Company generally treats its employees as a single unit
is amply established by the record. Late in 1935, the Company pre-
pared to reopen the Willimantic plant for production by trans-
ferring loom fixers, twisters, and floor men from the Mystic plant
to Willimantic. In January 1936, when both plants commended
operations after a week's shut-down, the Company announced a wage
decrease effective in both plants. The Union called a strike which
succeeded in closing both plants 'for a period of approximately six
weeks. During the course of the strike, the Willimantic plant, which
the Company was attempting to reopen, was picketed by employees
of 'both plants, and the Company met with a committee represent-
ing employees of both plants in an ' effort to terminate the strike.
At the same 'time, 'the strikers held mass meetings which were at-
tended by employees of both plants.
The evidence is' overwhelming that the rights and interests of the
Company's employees may best be protected and furthered by con-
sidering the employees of both plants as one ' unit. We therefore
find that, in order to insure to the employees of the Company the
'full benefit ' of their right to self-organization and collective bar-
gaining, and' otherwise to effectuate the policies of the Act, all pro-
duction and maintenance employees of the Company at its Willi-
mantic and Mystic, Connecticut, plants, exclusive of supervisory and
clerical employees, together constitute a unit appropriate for the
purposes of collective bargaining.
810 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
V. EFFECT OF THE QUESTION OF REPRESENTATION ON COMMERCE
We find that the question of representation which has arisen, in
connection with the operations of the Company described in Section
I above, has a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic,
and commerce among the several States, and has led and tends to lead
to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free
flow of commerce.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
On the basis of the above findings of fact, the Board makes the
following conclusions of law :
1. A question affecting commerce has arisen concerning the repre-
sentation of the employees in the aforesaid unit within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) and Section 2, subdivisions (6) and (7) of the
National Labor Relations Act.
2. All production and maintenance employees of the Company at
its Willimantic, Connecticut, and Mystic, Connecticut plants, exclusive
of supervisory and clerical employees, together 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, 49 Stat. 449, and pursuant to Article III, Section 8 of
National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 1,
as amended, it is hereby
DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation authorized by the Board
to ascertain representatives for collective bargaining with Rossie
Velvet Company, an election by secret ballot shall be conducted within
twenty (20) days from the date of this Direction, under the direction
and supervision of the Regional Director; for the First Region, act-
ing in this matter as agent for the-National Labor Relations Board,
and subject to Article III, Section 9 of said Rules and Regulations-
Series 1, as amended, among all the production and maintenance
employees of Rossie Velvet Company in its Willimantic, Connecticut,
and Mystic, Connecticut, plants, who were employed in said plants
on July 7, 1937, except supervisory and clerical employees, and those
who have since quit or were discharged for cause, to determine
whether they desire to be represented by Textile Workers Organizing
Committee of the C. I. 0., for the purposes of collective bargaining.