Elizabeth Arden Sales Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 7, 1952

100 N.L.R.B. 1383 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

ELIZABETH ARDEN SALES CORPORATION 1383
of multistate enterprises from the types of sales to be taken into ac-
count in applying the standards established in that case. The only
exception is where such a local unit itself has sufficient inflow or out-
flow to warrant assertion of jurisdiction over it.'
On the basis of the above facts and on the record as a whole, we find
that the operations of the Employer do not meet any of the applicable
standards set up by the Board to determine the assertion of jurisdic-
tion e Accordingly, we find that it will not effectuate the policies of
the Act to assert jurisdiction in this case, and will dismiss the petition
herein.'
Order
IT Is HEREBY ORDERED that the petition herein be, and it hereby is,
dismissed.
: See National'Gas Company, 99 NLRB 273.
° Cf. Stanislaus Implement and Hardware Company, Ltd., 91 NLRB 618; Hollow Tree
,.umber Company, 91 NLRB 635; and The Rutledge Paper Products, Inc, 91 NLRB 625.
'Redfern Sausage Company, 98 NLRB 6; Ben H. Christopher, d/b/a Crown Sign and
Construction (Company, at al., 99 NLRB 843.
ELIZABETH ARDEN SALES CORPORATION AND/OR ELIZABETH ARDEN and
LADIES' TAILORS, CUSTOM DRESSMAKERS, THEATRICAL COSTUME AND
ALTERATION WORKERS' UNION, LOCAL 38, ILGWU , AFL, PETI-
TIONER. Case No. 2-RC-4828. October 7, 1952
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 Leonard J. Lurie, hearing
,officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from
prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
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-mem-
ber panel. [Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Murdock].
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 organization involved claims 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 Petitioner seeks a unit limited to tailors employed by the
Employer in its several New York City workrooms. The Employer
100 NLRB No. 202.
1384 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
contends that such a unit would be too limited in scope and that, to,
be appropriate, it should embrace all employees in the Employer's
tailoring division.
The record establishes that the tailoring division produces custom-
made women's suits and gowns. The Employer's 9 tailors, under
the supervision of fitters, work exclusively on individually designed
women's tailored suits. The remainder of the approximately 66 em-
ployees in the tailoring division, operators, drapers, and finishers,
herein collectively called dressmakers, work under separate super-
vision almost exclusively on custom-made women's gowns. The gown's
produced by the Employer are customarily draped and made of soft
materials; its suits, on the other hand, are invariably individually
fitted and tailored, and are usually made of hard material. Occasion-
ally, however, the tailors make "dressmaker" suits of some soft
materials such as silk.
According to uncontroverted testimony at the hearing, the appren-
ticeship of a custom tailor begins very early in life, possibly by the
age of 12. After an apprenticeship of 3 to 5 years, an additional 16,
to 15 years' experience is required to produce a fully qualified custom
tailor. Throughout the industry ladies' custom tailors are usually
men, although the unit here sought contains two women tailors who
do alteration work on skirts.
The Employer's dressmakers, all of whom are women, normally
receive their training in a 1- to 2-year course at a trade school. After
such training they are qualified to do some draping and finishing.
The record does not establish how much experience is required to
produce a fully qualified dressmaker. However, it is clear that
dressmakers are not considered qualified to do any tailoring
in establishments which manufacture custom-made suits. The aver-
age wage of the Employer's dressmaker is $50 a week; the average
wage of the tailor is $85 a week.
Recently in Sol Baum and Julie Baum,' a case involving a Cali-
fornia manufacturer of ready-made dresses and suits, the Board de-
clined to establish a bargaining unit confined to employees engaged
in producing lined jackets and accompanying skirts. There the
Board found that the employees so engaged carried the same job
classification and possessed the same skills as many of the employees
who were producing dresses and unlined jackets. Because of the
integration of the two operations, the lack of distinctive skills in the
manufacture of lined jackets, and the absence of any clear showing
of an established pattern of separate bargaining in the area, the
Board in that case found a separate unit inappropriate.
1,91 NLRB 708 . ( Chairman Herzog and Member Styles dissenting.)
CALIFORNIA RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT COMPANY 1385•
However, we do not believe that that ruling is apposite here. There
the Board was concerned with the production line manufacture of
standard ready-made garments, with each employee performing one
particular function in the manufacturing process. Here there are,
highly skilled craftsmen who receive individually cut material from
the fitters , and thereafter themselves complete every step in the tailor-
ing of a finished ladies' suit.
The record establishes that in the New York custom -made garment
industry the Petitioner has represented tailors separately for many
years, even in establishments where it also represents dressmakers.
Recently, for the sake of convenience in bargaining , the Petitioner has
executed a single contract covering both groups with some employers,
while retaining separate contracts with others . In the circumstances
of this case, we do not believe that the Petitioner 's consolidation
of some of its bargaining units militates against a finding that the
tailors, who have traditionally been regarded as a true craft, can
appropriately constitute a separate bargaining unit.
In view of the foregoing , and upon the entire record , we find that
all tailors employed in the Employer 's several New York City work-
rooms , excluding operators , drapers, finishers , and supervisors, con-
stitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9 ( b) of the Act.
(Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.)
CALIFORNIA RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT COMPANY 1 and OPERATING
ENGINEERS LOCAL UNION No. 3, INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERAT-
ING ENGINEERs, AFL, PETITIONER
CALIFORNIA RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL
ASSOCIATION of MACHINISTS, DISTRICT LODGE No. 115, AFL,
PETITIONER
CALIFORNIA RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, AFL, PETITIONER. Cases
Nos. 20-RC-1836,20-RC-1848, and 20-RC-1850. October 8, 1952
Decision and Direction of Elections
Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before
Robert V. Magor, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made
a The Employer's name appears as amended at the hearing.
100 NLRB No. 221.