Sussex Hats, Inc., Employer And United Hatters, Cap And Millinery Workers Iinternational Union~, A. F. Ofl. Petitioner, 737 (1947)

In the Matter Of SUSSEX HATS, INC., EMPLOYER and UNITED HATTERS,

CAP AND MILLINERY WORKERS IINTERNATIONAL UNION~, A. F. OFL.

PETITIONER Case No. 1I?--3565.-Deoided April 30, 1947 Mr; Edward B. Cooley, of Springfield, Mass., and Mr. William Wolf, of Hlolyoke, Mass., f or the Employer.

Mr. Franke R/eel, of Boston, Mass., and Mr. Edward Erw~in, of Hblyoke, Mass., for the Petitioner.

Miss Eleanor Sch'wartrzbach, of counsel to the Board.

DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES Upon a petition duly filed, the National Labor Relations Board on February 28, 1947, conducted a prehearing election among employees of the Employer in the alleged appropriate unit, to determine whether or not they desired to be represented by the Petitioner for the purposes of collective bargaining.

At the close of the election, a Tally of Ballots was furnished the parties. The Tally shows that there were approximately 54 eligible voters and that 51 ballots were cast, of which 26 were for the Petitioner, 22 were against, and 3 were challenged.

Thereafter, hearing in the case was held at Boston, Massachusetts, on March 17, 1947, before Robert E. Greene, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.

The Employer's request for oral argument is hereby denied inasmuch as the record and briefs, in our opinion, adequately present the issues and positions of the parties.

Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations Board makes the following:,

FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF TH7E EMPLOYER Sussex Hats, Inc., a Massachusetts corporation, is engaged in the manufacture of ladies' hats at Holyoke, Massachusetts. In addition to its plant in Holyoke, the Employer maintains a sales office in New York City. During the last 6 months of 1946, the Employer purchased raw materials, consisting principally of felt bodies and straw materials, amounting in value to more than $70,000, approximately 50 percent of which was shipped to its plant from points outside the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. During the same period the Employer sold fifished products valued in excess of $150,000, 95 percent of which was shipped to points outside the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

The Employer admits and we find that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.

2. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED The Petitioner is a labor organization affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, claiming to represent employees of the Employer.

3. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION The Employer refuses to recognize the Petitioner as the exclusive bargaining representative of employees of the Employer until the Petitioner has been certified by the Board in an appropriate unit.

   We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning the representation of employees of the Employer, within the meaning of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.

4. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT The parties agree generally that the appropriate unit should consist of all production employees, including packers and shippers, but excluding executives, office employees, maintenance employees, and all supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in...