Palace Knitwear Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 20, 1951

93 N.L.R.B. 872 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

872 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
PALACE KNITWEAR Co., INC., PETITIONER and KNITGOODS WORKERS
UNION, LOCAL 155, ILGWU, AFL. Case No. 2-ISM-222. March
20, 1961
Decision and Order
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before D. J. Sullivan, hearing of-
ficer. 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 [Members Houston, Murdock, and Styles].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is a New York corporation engaged in New York
City in the commission manufacture of knit goods. The raw ma-
terials which the Employer processes are owned and furnished by its
customers, the Employer providing only its manufacturing and re-
lated services. Until July 1950, the Employer's operations consisted
of two departments. One department processed yarn into knitted
fabric, and the other, known as the "outerwear department," manu-
factured finished garments from the knitted fabric. For the period
July 15, 1949, to July 15, 1950, the Employer's earnings exceeded
$50,000 for work performed on materials valued at over $100,000.
During this period, the Employer received more than $25,000 for the
processing of goods valued in excess of $100,000, which it shipped
directly outside the State of New York.
The Employer discontinued its outerwear department in July 1950,
but continued its other operations. The materials processed by the
Employer from July 1950 to January 1951 exceeded $100,000 in
value.' Approximately 90 percent of the materials processed by the
Employer was consigned to it from outside the State of New York
although not necessarily shipped directly to the Employer from out-
side the State. However, of such shipments, goods valued at ap-
proximately $45,000 were shipped directly to the Employer, after in-
termediate processing, from within the State of New York, but were
transported through the State of New Jersey en route to the Em-
ployer's plant in New York City. Approximately 75 percent, in dollar
value, of the materials processed by the Employer during this period
represented goods destined for ultimate shipment outside the State
of New York. -D
1 The Employer's earnings for this period, if projected on an annual basis, would
approximate $50,000 a year.
93 NLRB No. 148.
PALACE KNITWEAR CO., INC. 873
We find, contrary to the contention of the Union, that the Employer
is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act, and that it
would effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein?
2. 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 rea-
sons:
Fora number of years, the Employer had contractual relations with
the Union as the representative of its employees in both departments.
On May 8, 1950, the Union notified the Employer by letter that it
desired to negotiate a new agreement to succeed the then current con-
tract, which was to expire on July 15, 1950. Although there were
sporadic discussions concerning the making of a new agreement, the
contract expired on July 15, 1950, without the parties having entered
into a new contract. As a result of the loss of certain key outerwear
department employees in June 1950, and the Employer's inability to
replace them, operations in that department declined until, by July
15, 1950,-they were shut down. • The Employer continued its knitting
department operations. On June 23, 1950, the Union placed and
thereafter maintained a picket line at the Employer's premises with
picket signs alleging that the employees were on strike. The man-
ager of the Union testified at the hearing that the purpose of the picket
line was "to call attention of the public that this firm has locked out
its employees on July 23, 1950, when it refused to bargain with the
union on behalf of the employees at that time employed." The pe-
tition herein was filed on July 25, 1943. On September 19, 1950, the
Union filed with the Board unfair labor practice charges alleging,
among other things, that the Employer refused to bargain with the
Union as the representative of its employees. On December 12, 1950,
the Union requested permission to withdraw these charges; the re-
quest was granted on December 19, 1950.
At the hearing, and in its brief, the Union stated unequivocally that
it does not claim to represent the present employees of the Employer,
and moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that there was no
question concerning representation. The Employer, on the other
hand, asserts that by virtue of the Union's letter of May 8, 1950, the
picket line instituted on July 23, 1950, and the picket signs alleging
that its employees are on strike, the Union is, in effect, making a
representation claim.
2 Stanislaus Implement and Hardware Company , Limited, 91 NLRB 618; Hollow Tree
Lumber Company, 91 NLRB 635 . Although the Employer's plant was not operating at the
time of the hearing, the shutdown was temporary.
874 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Union has not requested recognition as the representative of
the Employer's employees since about July 20, 1950. The obstacle to
the execution of a new agreement to,supplant the one which expired
on July 15, 1950, appears to have been the Employer's refusal to con-
tinue its outerwear department operations. The Board is of the
opinion, from the entire record, that the purpose of the strike is to
compel the Employer to resume those operations and not to secure
recognition as the bargaining representative of the Employer's re-
maining employees. Under these circumstances, and particularly
in view of the Union's unequivocal disclaimer of representative inter-
est at the hearing, the Board finds that no question exists concerning
representation 3 and, accordingly, will grant the Union's motion to
dismiss the petition herein.
Order
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition in this proceeding be, and
it hereby is, dismissed.
' Hubaoh and Parkinson Motors, et at., 88 NLRB 1202; Ny-Lint Tool & Manufacturing
Co., 77 NLRB 642; cf. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of Walla Walla, Washington, 80 NLRB 1063.
QUALITY HARDWARE & MACHINE DIVISION, CONTINENTAL COPPER AND
STEEL INDUSTRIES, INC. and RALPH G. SANDERS, PETITIONER and
DIE & TOOL MAKERS LODGE No. 113, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
MACHINISTS. Case No. 13-RD-77. March 20, 1951
Order Dismissing Petition
On November 9, 1950, pursuant to the Decision and Direction of
Election issued by the Board on October 12, 1950, an election by secret
ballot was conducted in the above-entitled proceeding. Because a
challenged ballot would affect the results of the election, the Regional
Director investigated the matter. In the course of his investigation
he ascertained that the Employer had interfered with the conduct of
the election. Thereafter, on February 21, 1951,,the Regional Director
for the Thirteenth Region issued his report on employer interfer-
ence and on challenged ballot, in which he recommended that the
petition for decertification of representatives previously filed herein
be dismissed.
No exceptions to the Regional Director's report have been filed by
any of the parties within the time provided therefor. We therefore
93 NLRB No. 238.