Silver Knit Hosiery Mills, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 14, 1951

93 N.L.R.B. 791 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

SILVER KNIT HOSIERY MILLS, INC- 791
other plant employees. On similar facts, the Board has frequently
held that truck drivers constitute a separate and identifiable group of
skilled employees entitled to separate bargaining despite a history of
inclusion in a broader collective bargaining units Under these cir-
cumstances, and on the basis of the entire record, we find that the
Employer's truck drivers may appropriately be included in the pro-
duction and maintenance unit or in a separate unit. We shall, there-
fore, order an election in a voting group consisting of all truck drivers
and helpers at the Employer's Louisville box plants, excluding
supervisors and all other employees.
The Board, however, shall make no final unit determination at
this time, but shall first ascertain the desires of those employees as
expressed in the election hereinafter directed. If a majority vote
for the Petitioner, they will be taken to have indicated their desire to
constitute a separate unit. If not, they will be taken to have indicated
their desire to remain a part of the existing production and maintenace
unit.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
e See Detroit Branch, Reliance Steel Division, Detroit Steel Corporation, 90 NLRB No.
62; The Schaible Company, 88 NLRB 733 and cases cited therein.
SILVER KNIT HOSIERY MILLS, INC. and UNITED TEXTILE WORKERS OF
AMERICA, AFL, PETITIONER. Cage No . 34-RC-245. March 14, 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 Miles J. McCormick, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.'
1 At the hearing the Petitioner objected to the intervention of American Federation of
Hosiery Workers , the Intervenor in this proceeding , on the ground that the Intervenor
had made no showing of interest in the matter . The hearing officer properly overruled
the objection and permitted the intervention . It is well settled that the sufficiency of a
showing of interest is an administrative matter for determination by the Board and is
not subject to collateral attack. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, 88 NLRB 600, and
cases cited therein.
The record shows that immediately prior to the opening of the hearing , the Petitioner
and the Employer agreed to enter into a stipulation as to the appropriateness of the unit
proposed by the Petitioner , and to execute a consent election agreement . The Intervenor
refused to join in this agreement . The hearing officer rejected the consent agreement
on the ground that in his opinion the unit agreed upon was inappropriate . The Peti-
tioner excepts to the hearing officer's ruling . Whether or not the hearing officer had
authority to disapprove the consent election agreement on the ground of the inappropriate-
ness of the proposed unit, it is clear that approval of such agreement was precluded in
any event by the unwillingness of the Intervenor to join therein . Accordingly , the hearing
officer 's action was not prejudicial to the Petitioner, and is hereby affirmed.
93 NLRB No. 120.
792 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
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 organizations involved claim to represent certain em-,
ployees 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 and the Employer agree that all production and
maintenance employees at the Employer's High Point, North Caro-
lina, seamless hosiery plant, including employees in the knitting de-
partment, looping department, dyeing and finishing department, ship-
ping department, production clerks, inspectors, and looping fixers, but
excluding office clerical employees, boarders, the designer, employee
Kenny, watchmen, foremen, assistant foremen, the forelady (Car-
michael), and all other supervisors, constitute an appropriate unit.
The Intervenor objects to the proposed unit, contending that the ap-
propriate unit should consist of all production and maintenance em=
ployees of the Employer, including the boarders. Thus, the parties
are in disagreement primarily with respect to the boarders. A dis-
pute also exists as to the supervisory status of head fixers discussed
below.
Pursuant to an agreement for a payroll cross-check in 1944, Local
65 of the Petitioner was designated as the exclusive bargaining repre-
sentative of a stipulated unit composed of "all boarders, excluding
foremen and assistant foremen, in the boarding room." Thereafter,
the Employer executed with the Petitioner and its Local, successive
annual contracts covering the employees in the foregoing unit. The
last contract, executed on November 1, 1949, runs until May 1, 1951,
and contains a 60-day automatic renewal clause.
The record shows that the boarders, whom the Petitioner currently
represents, are engaged in drying and shaping socks, after they have
been dyed, by placing them over heated aluminum forms or "boards."
The boarders work under the supervision of a foreman, who also
supervises the dyeing department, and are paid on a piecework basis.
They work in the same room as the dyeing employees. They have
substantially the same working conditions and enjoy the same benefits
as the Employer's other production and maintenance employees.
SILVER KNIT HOSIERY MILLS, INC- 793
The Petitioner contends, however, that the boarders are already
covered by an existing contract with the Employer. anal that such
contract bars a present determination of representat; v es _ affecting
these employees. While under different circumstances the boarders
could be included in the broad production and maintenance unit, we
shall exclude them from the unit here sought, in view of the history
of separate collective bargaining for the boarders, and in view of the
fact that they are covered by an existing contract.'
There remains for consideration the supervisory status of the head
fixers. There are two head fixers, who work in the knitting depart-
ment under the supervision of a department foreman. They spend
approximately 50 percent of their time directing and overseeing the
work of other fixers, and training new employees in their duties as
fixers; the remainder of their time is spent working on machines, al-
though they do not have machines regularly assigned to them as other
fixers do. They do not have power to hire or discharge employees, but
their recommendations in these matters are given great weight by
their supervisors. It appears from the record that head fixers have
effectively recommended the retention of employees whose dismissal
was under consideration. Upon the basis of the foregoing, and upon
the record as a whole, we find that the head fixers are supervisors
within the meaning of the Act. Accordingly, we shall exclude them
from the unit.
We find that all production and maintenance employees of the
Employer at its High Point, North Carolina, plant, including em-
ployees in the knitting department, looping department, dyeing and
finishing department,' shipping department, production clerks, in-
spectors and looping fixers, but excluding boarders, office clerical
employees, the designer, watchmen, professional employees, foremen,
assistant foremen, the forelady (Carmichael), head fixers, and all
other supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate
for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section
9 (b) of the Act.3
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
0
'Guilford Hosiery Mills, Inc, 70 NLRB 1047; Kohlenberger Engineering Corporation,
71 NLRB 818.
8 The parties agreed to exclude one production man named Kenny. We are unable to
determine from the record the duties of this employee. If his duties are like those f the
other production employees he is to be included in the unit. However, if his work places
him in a category which the Board ordinarily excludes from production and maintenance
units, he may in accordance with the stipulation of the parties be excluded from the unit.