Extract
Jackson Garment Co., Inc., 171 (1952)
JACKSON GARMENT COMPANY, INC. 171 ployees, and all employees included in voting groups (1), (2), (3), (4), and (5).
The Firemen and Oilers desires to participate in the election among employees in voting group (6) and we shall place its name on the ballot in that election. It does not appear that the Chemical Workers desires to participate in the separate elections among the craft groups (1), (2), (3), (4), and (5), and we make no specific provision for its name on these ballots. If, however, the Chemical Workers desires to do so, it may participate in one or more of these elections by notifying the Regional Director of its desire in this matter within 5 days of the date of issuance of this Decision.If a majority of the employees in voting groups (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5) select a labor organization other than that selected by a majority of the employees in voting group (6), those employees will be taken to have indicated their desire to constitute a separate bargaining unit and the Regional Director conducting the election is instructed to issue a certification of representatives to the labor organization selected by the employees in each group for such unit or units which the Board, in such circumstances, finds to be appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining. If a majority of employees in voting groups (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5) select the labor organization chosen by a majority of employees in voting group (6), those employees will be taken to have indicated their desire to constitute part of the production and maintenance unit and the Regional Director conducting the election is instructed to issue a certification of representatives selected by the employees in such groups which the Board, in such circumstances, finds to be a single unit appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining.[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication in this volume.] JACKSON GARMENT COMPANY, INC. and UNITED PAPER WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO. Cases Nos. 32-CA-190 and 32-KC-306. July 15, 1952Decision and Order On December 11, 1951, Trial Examiner Louis Plost issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the General Counsel 100 NLRB No. 30.and the Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report; the Respondent also filed a brief in support of its exceptions.The Board' has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the ,case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner with the following additions and modifications : 21. We find that the Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.2. The Trial Examiner found, without setting forth the evidence in detail, that floorladies, Cutting Room Foreman Matheney, and Corda Mae Elder were supervisors, and service girls were not supervisors. The Respondent has excepted to the finding as to floorladies and Elder and Matheney; the General Counsel has excepted to the finding as to service girls.The Respondent normally has approximately 190 production workers. A service girl is in charge of a section which consists of 26 machines and the same number of operators. Each service girl is responsible for the production in her section. She may transfer girls from one machine to another within the section, and may also decide which laid-off employees in her section are to be called back to work.Immediately over the service girl is a floorlady, who is in charge of 2 sections or 52 operators. The floorlady is primarily responsible for the quality of work in her sections. She has the power effectively to recommend hiring and discharge.Corda Mae Elder, according to the credited testimony, was the immediate assistant of Supervisor Duncan and ranked above the floorladies whose work she supervised. Ernest Matheney was the foreman in charge of the cutting room. He had approximately seven employees working under his supervision. He laid out and assigned work to his subordinates, told them what to do and when to do it.The service girls, floorladies, and the cutting room foreman attended management meetings.3 They were excluded as supervisors from the coverage of collective bargaining contracts between the Re1 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-member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Murdock p 2In adopting the Trial Examiner' s findings, we have accepted his resolutions of credibility. Standard Dry Wall Products...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
