Flagg-Utica Corp., 211 (1962)

Docket Number:10-RC-03209


  1. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.

  2. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.

  3. The Respondent has not engaged in any unfair labor practice by the discharge of W. A. Lay.

    [Recommendations omitted from publication. ] J. T. Flagg Knitting Company, Division of Flagg-Utica Corporation and Lodge No. 1189, International Association of Machinists, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 10-RC-3209. January 23, 1956 DECISION AND ORDER

    Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Frank E. Hamilton, Jr., hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.

    Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :

  4. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.

  5. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain employees of the Employer.

  6. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the representation 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 reasons:

    The Petitioner seeks to represent, in general, a unit of machine fixers. It would include in the unit the following job classifications:

    assistant foremen, machine fixers classified as assistant foremen, machine fixers, and their apprentices. It would exclude employees covered by contracts between the Employer and other labor organizations.

    It is willing, however, to represent oilers now covered by contract if the Board is of the opinion they should be included in such a unit. The Employer contends that the unit requested by the Petitioner is not appropriate, that assistant foremen or machine fixers classified as assistant foremen are supervisors, and that the existing bargaining contract covers any nonsupervisory classifications requested and bars a current election.

    The contract urged by the Employer is one with Local 378, International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO, which did not appear at the hearing although notified of the proceeding. The contract was negotiated January 15, 1955, to run for 1 year, and covers production and maintenance employees. Part of the contract dealing 115 NLRB No. 24.

    with its coverage-the only portion of the contract in evidence-reads as follows :

    ... WHEREAS, it is agreed that the Union represents the workers in this industry now -employed, or hereinafter to be employed as production and maintenance workers by the Firm during the effective life of this Agreement, but not including exexcutives, office force, foremen and assistant foremen, machine fixers being classified as assistant foremen and foreladies... .

    As the contract is approaching the expiration date of its term, we find, without regard to its coverage, that it is no bar to a determination of representatives at this time. Concerning the contract's coverage and its consequent effect upon the unit question, the meager record before us warrants only a finding that the language of the contract is sufficiently broad to cover any machine fixers there may be who are not classified as assistant foremen.' The Employer is engaged in the manufacture and sale of knitted wearing apparel and employs about 1,300 persons. Its various operations at Florence, Alabama, are carried on in several different buildings. The classifications...

To continue reading