Lebanon Shirt Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 17, 1945

60 N.L.R.B. 1297 (N.L.R.B. 1945)

In the Matter Of HERMAN GREENFELD , D/B/A LEBANON SHIRT COM-
PANY and UNITED GARMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, A. F. L.
Case No. 15-R-1308.-Decided March 17, 1945
Messrs. H. V. Watkins d Ralph B. Avery, by Mr. H. V. Watkins,
of Jackson , Miss., for the Company.
Mr. M. G. Sparks , of Meridian , Miss., for the AFL.
Mr. Sidney Grossman , of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a petition duly filed by United Garment Workers of America,
affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, herein called the
AFL, alleging that a question affecting commerce had arisen concern-
ing the representation of employees of Herman Greenfeld, d/b/a
Lebanon Shirt Company, Union, Mississippi, herein called the Com-
pany,' the National Labor Relations Board provided for an appro-
priate hearing upon due notice before LeRoy Marceau, Trial Ex-
aminer. Said hearing was held at Meridian, Mississippi, on February
23, 1945. The Company and the Union appeared and participated.
All parties were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine
and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the
issues. At the hearing, the Company moved to dismiss the petition
for want of proper notice of hearing, insufficiency of the AFL's de-
mand for recognition, and defect in parties. Ruling was reserved for
the Board. In part, for the reasons stated in Sections I and III,
infra, the motions are denied.2 The Trial Examiner's rulings made
at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby af-
1 At the hearing , the name of the Company was amended as designated above.
P Notwithstanding the fact that the Company received Notice of Hearing 3 days prior
thereto , the evidence does not disclose that it was prejudiced thereby , particularly in view
of its failure to avail itself of the opportunity afforded by the Trial Examiner to request
a continuance . Moreover, the Company ' s letter to the Regional Director , dated February
7, 1945, indicated that it had been apprised of the filing of the petition and evinced
an intent to cooperate in the holding of an election . Cf. Matter of South Carolina
Granite Company, 52 N L R B 453
CO N' L. R B., No 222.
628563-45-vol 60-83 1297
1298 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
firmed. All parties were afforded an opportunity to file briefs with
the Board. The Company's request for oral argument is hereby de-
nied.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following:
FINDINGS or FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Herman Greenfeld, d/b/a Lebanon Shirt Company, is the sole
proprietor of the Company herein which has its principal office at
222 Fifth Avenue, New York City, and operates plants at Lebanon,
Pennsylvania, and at Union, Mississippi. This proceeding is con-
cerned with the Company's Union plant where it is engaged in the
manufacture of twill shirts for the Government and sport shirts for
civilian use. During a 12-month period, the Company purchases raw
materials in excess of $2,000,000 in value, of which approximately 100
percent is secured from sources outside the State of Mississippi. Over
90 percent of the Company's finished products is shipped to points
outside the State of Mississippi.
We find that the Company is engaged in commerce within the mean-
ing of the National Labor Relations Act .3
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
United Garment Workers of America, affiliated with .the American
Federation of Labor, is a labor organization admitting to membership
employees of the Company.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
On January 31,1945, the AFL telephoned the Company at the plant
here involved, advising the manager thereof that it had been desig-
iiated as the bargaining representative of a majority of the Company's
employees and requesting recognition as their bargaining agent. The
plant manager responded that it was incumbent upon him to commu-
nicate with the New York office, and, although an attempt to do so
did not succeed, he thereafter took no further action. The following
day, the AFL filed its petition in the Regional Office. Although the
Company contends that it had not refused to grant recognition to the
9 The Company contends that the municipality of Union, In which Its plant Is located,
has an interest in the Company ' s employees and therefore should have been made a party
to this proceeding . There is no merit to this contention . The municipality is merely
the lessor of the premises occupied by the Company. The fact that the Company, under
the terms of its contract with Union , is required - to accord employment preference to
citizens of the municipality , does not, in our dpinion , alter or enhance the lessor-lessee
relationship.
LEBANON SHIRT COMPANY 1299
AFL, at the hearing, it would not accord such recognition. For a
proceeding of this kind, it is sufficient that, as of the date of the hearing,
the petitioning union's status as a, bargaining representative is disputed
and that recognition depends upon certification by the Board 4
A statement of a Board agent, introduced into evidence at the hear-
ing, indicates that the AFL represents a substantial number of em-
ployees in the unit hereinafter found appropriate.5
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 AFL seeks a unit comprised of all employees at the Company's
Union, Mississippi, plant, excluding clerical employees and all super-
visory employees. Although the Company is in agreement with the
general composition of the unit, it contends that effect be given in the
Board's unit finding to employment preferences for citizens of the
municipality of Union, Mississippi, as provided in its current con-
tract with that municipality; We perceive no validity in such con-
tention; the purpose of this proceeding is merely to determine whether
the AFL may be accorded the status of bargaining representative of
the Company's employees. The Board, therefore, is not here con-
cerned with matters more properly the subject of collective bargain-
ing between the Company and the bargaining representative of its
employees. -
The AFL would include, and the Company would exclude, Herman
Bell and W. E. McNeely, as non-supervisory employees. The record
discloses that Bell, as head of the shipping department, and McNeely,
as head of the maintenance department, receive a substantially higher
rate of pay than employees whose work they direct in their respective
departments, and that they have authority to recommend the disci-
pline or discharge of such employees. Although McNeely, unlike
Bell, is required to submit his recommendations to the Company's New
York office for consideration, there is no showing that his authority
is less effective than that of other supervisory employees who submit
recommendations to the plant manager. We shall, therefore, exclude
both Herman Bell and W. E. McNeely from the unit hereinafter
found appropriate.
We find that all employees at the Company's Union, Mississippi,
plant, excluding clerical employees, the heads of the shipping and
maintenance departments, and all other supervisory employees with
4 Matter of R 'R. Donnelley and Sons Company, 59 N. L .•R B. 122.
The Field Examiner reported that the AFL submitted 254 membership applications,
all of which bore dates in January 1945 . There are approximately 435 employees in the
alleged appropriate unit.
1300 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
authority to hire, promote , discharge , discipline , or otherwise effect
changes in the status of employees , or effectively recommend such
action, 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 em-
ployees in the appropriate unit who were employed during the pay-
roll period immediately preceding the date of the Direction of Elec-
tion 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, aNNd pursuant to Article III, Section 9, of National Labor Rela-
tions Board Rules and Regulations-Series 3, as amended, it is hereby
DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation to ascertain representa-
tives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Herman Greenfeld,
d/b/a Lebanon Shirt Company, Union, Mississippi, an election by
secret ballot shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later than
sixty (60) days from the date of this Direction, under the direction
and supervision of the Regional Director for the Fifteenth Region,
acting in this matter as agent for the National Laboo • Relations Board,
and subject to Article III, Sections 10 and 11, of said Rules and Regu-
lations, among the employees in the unit found appropriate in Sec-
tion IV, above, who were employed during the pay-roll period iin-
mediately preceding the date of this Direction, including employees
who did not work, during the 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 United Garment Workers of America,
affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, for the purposes
of collective bargaining.