Bigelow-Sanford Carpet Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 5, 1952

100 N.L.R.B. 1021 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

BIGELOW-SANFORD CARPET COMPANY , INC. 1021
and deprivations of industrial conflict to areas not directly involved,
.nor could such a privilege be squared with the basic policy of the
statute to minimize industrial strife and interruptions to commerce.10
Finally, there is no contention here that the Dealers could not have
continued to operate without a contract or without assurance against
being struck, so that this case does not fall within the rule of the
Betts Cadillac case 11 and similar cases.
For all the foregoing reasons,12 and upon the entire record in the
case, we reaffirm our original Decision and Order herein.
CHAIRMAN HERZOG, dissenting :
Having reserved decision in the recent Morand case 13 on the issue
which is more squarely before us here, I have reconsidered that issue
in the light of the courts' opinions in both the Morand and the Davis
cases. These opinions impel me to conclude that, in this context, the
majority errs in adhering to the view that this temporary lockout,
motivated by a desire to counteract a union-directed stoppage rather
than by an intent to interfere with concerted activity, constituted a
violation of the amended Act.
Here the_ parties had reached an impasse, and it was the Union
which took the initiative in selecting the particular weapons of eco-
nomic combat. The Employers did no more than defend themselves
with commensurate weapons; they refrained from using the ultimate,
and to my mind unlawful, instrument of discharge. I am unwilling
to infer a wish to destroy from an attempt to resist, to do battle, and
to win.
MEMBER PETERSON took no part in the consideration of the above
Supplemental Decision and Order.
10 Compare Section 8 ( b) (4) of the Act , which implements this policy by forbidding
unions to extend the area of industrial conflict beyond the plant of the primary employer.
u Betts Cadillac Olds, Inc., 96 NLRB 268.
11 As more fully explicated in section II of our Supplemental Decision in Morand
Brothers, 99 NLRB 1448.
18 Morand Brothers, 99 NLRB 1448 , at footnote 20 of the Supplemental Decision ( 1952).
BIGELOW-SANFORD CARPET COMPANY, INC. and LOCAL 2188, UNITED
TEXTILE WORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL, PETrrIONER. Case No. 1-RC-
2810. September 5,1952
Decision and Order
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before a hearing
officer of the National Labor Relations Board. The hearing officer's
100 NLRB No. 163.
1022 DECISIONS :OR':NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS., BOARD
rulings -made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are
hereby affirmed. '
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Members Houston, Murdock, and
Styles].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the'
National Labor Relations Act. ,
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent employees of
the Employer.
3. No 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, for the following
reasons:
Since 19381 the intervening CIO Textile Workers and its Locals 1
and 2188 have represented the employees at the Amsterdam, New
York, and Thompsonville, Connecticut, carpet mills of the Employer
in a series of contracts, the last of which expired June 1, 1952.2 The
petition in this case was filed May 26, 1952, by "Local Union 2188"
claiming affiliation with the'United• Textile Workers of America, AFL,
requesting a unit of employees at the Thompsonville plant Only.3
The Intervenor urges the inappropriateness of any but the established
two-plant unit; the Employer is neutral.
The Thompsonville and Amsterdam plants are approximately 135
miles apart. The latter manufactures Axminster rugs and carpets
only; Thompsonville manufactures tapestry (also known as velvet)
and jacquard rugs and carpets, as well as one type of Axminster not
made at Amsterdam, known as "Axminster Oriental." 4 It is a fair
1 The Amsterdam employees had been unorganized before 1938. From 1935 to 1937
Thompsonville employees had been represented by United Textile Workers, AFL; from
1937-to 1938 they were represented, but without affiliation. In 1938 a CIO organizing
committee settled a strike at both plants, and the history of bargaining detailed in'this
Decision ensued. -
2 The recognition clause of the contracts has remained virtually unchanged : "This
agreement shall apply to all employees of the Employer at the Amsterdam and Thompson-
ville Mills, except clerical employees . . .' The Employer recognizes the Union as the
sole collective bargaining agency for all of said employees with regard to wages, hours
and conditions of employment."
8 On May 13, 1952, at a regular meeting of Local 2188 with approximately 700 attending
(the Thompsonville plant employs 2,000 but the record indicates 70 as the normal attend-
ance at union meetings) It was unanimously voted to disaffiliate from the CIO. Notices of
the meeting were amended the day before the meeting to show that the disaffiliation ques-
tion would be brought up. A May 29, 1952, meeting of the membership, attended by
1,300, unanimously ratified the earlier action.
4 Before 1950 Thompsonville manufactured types of Axminster also made at Amsterdam.
The concentration of Axminster manufacture at Amsterdam was the subject of an agree-
- 'meet with Local 2188 for absorption of affected employees in other jobs at Thompsonville.
" -BIGELOW-SANFORD CARPET COMPANY, INC. - 1023
inference from the record as a-whole that these two plants constitute
the Employer's carpet manufacturing operation 5
Policy determinations and over-all supervision for these two plants
are supplied by the firm's New York business office. At the plant
level each is separately supervised and each has its own personnel
department, which reports to the labor relations manager in New
York. Interchange of employees between the plants does not, occur,
and seniority is on a single plant basis. Each plant has a complete
manufacturing operation, without dependence upon the other except
in case of emergency. However, the research division is located at
Thompsonville, and a daily courier service connects the-two plants
carrying mail and samples between the two plants and to the New
York office. Quality control and safety personnel from the two plants
meet together about once a month; those charged with personnel duties
apparently meet semiannually.
'In support of its request for a unit of Thompsonville employees
alone, the Petitioner stresses the fact that some classifications of
employees do not exist at both plants, and that the rates of pay some-'
times differ within the same classifications. It is clear on the record,
however, that many skills are the same, with principal distinctions
occurring in the classifications of weavers, loom fixers, and section
hands. We also observe that the original contract contemplated
standardized wage rates, the same objective appeared in later con-
tracts, and the two locals made a joint study of rates for the War
Labor Board in 1945, the results of which have, in effect, been ratified
in subsequent contracts.
Although these two locals seem to have no joint membership meet-
ings, they have always acted together in negotiating the basic contract
each years The Petitioner stresses the fact that the contract is subject
to ratification by each local, and has frequently been modified by infor-
mal agreement to meet local needs. We note, however, that the basic
contracts have, from the beginning of joint bargaining in 1938, been
The record indicates that the Employer also owns a plant at Bristol, Virginia, which
had not operated for a period of 15 months before the hearing, and a "rayon manufactur-
ing process" at Rocky Hill , Connecticut . The record also contains a reference to the
Employer's "Georgia Rug Mill, Somerville , Georgia" without explanation of the type of
operation or whether it is being used. The Intervenor 's brief indicates that this plant
does not manufacture rugs and carpets
The Petitioner also urges the fact that since 1947 bargaining negotiations on the
master contract have been on a multiemployer basis, with additional CIO Textile Workers
locals representing employees of other carpet companies . However we note testimony
that Locals 1 and 2188 representing this Employer 's employees have been in consultation
during the negotiations , and the contracts which resulted , like all of those that preceded
them, have covered this Employer ' s Amsterdam and Thompsonville employees, and no
others.
1024 DECISIONS OF 'NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
complete collective bargaining agreements containing detailed provi-
sions as to wages, hours, holidays, vacations, and grievance procedure,
and that such bargainable issues as seniority, layoffs, promotions, inter-
departmental transfers, severance pay, leaves of absence, piecework
allowances , and safety have been given detailed treatment in the con-
tracts as bargaining progressed and time went on. Many of the "side
agreements," to which the Petitioner refers, arose out of grievances.
More recently the parties seem to have adapted the basic contract to
peculiarly local needs by means of a "letter" addressed to each of the
two locals requesting their approval of provisions contained in the
letter in connection with execution of the basic contract.
We conclude from this record that the Thompsonville and Amster-
dam employees do not lack that community of interest ordinarily
considered essential to effective multiplant bargaining.° We find that
the unit of Thompsonville and Amsterdam employees, stabilized as
it has been by 14 years of collective bargaining between the Employer
and the Intervenor, is appropriate.$ Accordingly, we grant the Inter-
venor's motion to dismiss the petition on the ground of inappropriate
unit.
Order
IT Is HEREBY ORDERED that the petition filed herein be, and it hereby
is, dismissed.
1 Compare Aluminum Company of America, 85 NLRB 915, 917; Hygrade Food Products
Corporation, 85 NLRB 841, where the master contract covered 13 widely separated plants
,of the Employer's total of 60.
0 The Reliance Electric d Engineering Company, 98 NLRB 488; Oregon Portland Cement
Co., 83 NLRB 675 ; see also Lever Brothers Company, 96 NLRB 448, 97 NLRB 1240 ; com-
pare Gulf Oil Corporation, 90 NLRB 1607, whet a the bargaining history was of 6 years' dura-
tion, the plants in question had been individually certified before merged in the contract
unit, and the unit constituted only part of one of the company's seven divisions ; and
Fruehauf Trailer Co., 87 NLRB 589, a here only two unrelated parts of a chain were sought
as a unit on the basis of bargaining history.
WENS-ILLINOIS GLASS COMPANY and GLASS BOTTLE BLOWERS AssocI-
ATION OF U . S. & CANADA, A. F. L., PETITIONER . Case No. 13-RC-
2510. September 5,190,
Decision and Certification of Representatives
Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election, an
election by secret ballot was conducted May 15 and 16, 1952, under
100 NLRB No. 144.