General Dry Batteries, Inc.

In the Matter of GENERAL DRY BATTERIES, INC., EMPLOYER and UNITED ELECTRICAL, RADIO & MACHINE WORKERS OF AMERICA (CIO), PE- TITIONER Case No. 3-R-1244.-Decided November J. 1946 Mr. Edwin Lavergne, of Gloversville, N. Y., for the Employer. Mr. Charles Rivers, of Schenectady, N. Y., for the Petitioner. Mr. Harold W. Ward, of Gloversville, N. Y., for the Intervenor. Mr. Sydney S. Asher, Jr., of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND DIRECTION Upon a petition duly filed, the.National Labor Relations Board on June 13, 1946, conducted a prehearing election among employees of the Employer in the alleged appropriate unit, to determine whether they desired to be represented by the Petitioner, or by the Intervenor, for the purposes of collective bargaining, or by neither. At the close of the election, a Tally of Ballots was furnished the parties. The Tally shows that there were approximately 280 eligible voters, of whom 116 voted for the Petitioner, 124 voted for the Inter- venor, 6 voted against both organizations, and 7 voted under challenge. Thereafter, a hearing was held at Gloversville, New York, on June 26, 1946, before Francis X. Helgesen, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hegeby affirmed. Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations Board makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER General Dry Batteries, Inc., is an Ohio corporation, with principal offices located in Cleveland, Ohio. It operates factories in several cm ties of the United States, Including a plant in Gloversville, New York, which is the only plant involved in this proceeding. At Gloversville, the Employer is engaged in the manufacture of dry cell batteries. 71N L R R, No 102 656 GENERAL DRY BATTERIES, INC. 657 During the calendar year 1945, the Employer purchased for its Glovers- ville factory raw materials valued at approximately $430,000, about 75 percent of which was shipped to the plant from points outside the State of New York. During the same period, it sold from this plant finished products valued at approximately $1,375,000, about 75 percent of which was shipped from the Gloversville factory to points outside the State. The Employer admits, and we find, that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED The Petitioner is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, claiming to represent employees of the Employer. Adironack Leather Workers' Union, herein called the Intervenor, is an unaffiliated labor, organization, claiming to represent employees of the Employer. In. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION The Employer refuses to recognize either the Petitioner or the Intervenor as the exclusive bargaining representative of employees of the Employer until one of them 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. IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT The prehearing election was held among all production and main- tenance employees at the Gloversville plant, excluding office and cleri- cal employees, watchmen, inspectors, the plant engineer, the nurse, foremen, and supervisors. At the hearing, issues arose as to the inclu- sion in or exclusion from the unit of (1) the seven employees whose votes were challenged and (2) the matron, the inspectors, and the watchmen, who did not vote. A. The challenged ballots The ballots of Glenn Buyce, Frank Schneider, Anthony Vecchia, Dominick Cardella and John Garguilo were challenged by the Inter- venor on the ground that they were supervisory employees. The Peti- tioner contends that all of these employees are non-supervisory em- ployees who should be included within the unit, while the Employer maintains that Cardella and Garguilo are supervisory employees, but 658 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD that the other three employees in question are non-supervisory pro- duction employees. John Garguilo is the working foreman in charge of the non- productive department consisting of 25 employees. He supervises the work of janitors and watchmen, and of the bull gang. The testimony reveals that he can effectively recommend changes in the status of the employees working under him. We are of the opinion that he is a supervisory employee within the meaning of our usual definition and, therefore, excluded from the unit. Accordingly, we hereby sus- tain the challenge to his ballot. Dominick Cardella is the working foreman in charge of the em- ployees in the shipping department. He supervises three employees engaged in the packaging of batteries. In addition, he keeps records of shipments. He can recommend the hiring, promoting, discharging, or disciplining of the employees working under him, and his recom- mendations are generally followed by the Employer. We find that he is a supervisory employee within the usual meaning of our defi- nition and, as such, excluded from the unit. We hereby sustain the ,challenge to his ballot. Frank Schneider, Anthony Vecchio, and Glenn Buyce 1 were classi- fied by the Employer as working foremen, in order to obtain approval from the War Labor Board for pay increases granted to them. Al- though they possess higher skills than other production employees, it is clear from the record that they have no authority effectively to recommend changes in the status of any other employees. Inasmuch as these employees are non-supervisory production employees, they are included in the unit. Accordingly, we hereby overrule the chal- lenges to their ballots. Frank Dittmar was challenged by the Intervenor on the ground that he is a clerical employee and, therefore, excluded from the unit. The Employer agrees with the Intervenor's position, but the Peti- tioner maintains that this employee is included in the unit. Dittmar is classified as a stock clerk. He is in charge of the stock room. He spends approximately 80 percent of his time doing clerical work. Except for a 2-week period each year, he has no subordinates. All the parties agreed that Frank Conroy, a factory office clerk, is ex- cluded from the unit. Conroy, like Dittmar, is a plant clerical em- ployee. In view of the exclusion of office and clerical employees from the unit, an exclusion which was agreed to by all parties, and the interpretation given to that phrase by the parties in the case of Con- roy, we regard Dittmar as being excluded from the unit. Accord- ingly, we hereby sustain the challenge to his ballot. IRobert Neil also belongs In this categoiv However, he appalentiv did not palticipste in the election GENERAL DRY BATTERIES, INC. 659 Edna Oatliout was challenged by the Petitioner on the -round that she is an inspector. The Employer and the Intervenor maintain that she is not an inspector, but is a production employee whose vote should be counted. The record reveals that she spends about 80 percent of her time as a production worker and approximately 20 percent as an inspector of batteries returned to the factory by dis- satisfied customers. Her wages are approximately the same as those paid to other production employees. Oathout is primarily a produc- tion worker. Her duties with respect to the inspection of batteries are a relatively minor part of her total duties. We are of the opinion that she is included within the unit as a production worker. We hereby overrule the challenge to her ballot. B. The matron The Intervenor desires that the matron be included within the appropriate unit. The Petitioner seeks to exclude the matron from the unit on the ground that the plant nurse was excluded by agree- ment of the parties, and that the matron performs duties similar to those of the plant nurse. The record reveals that the principal duty of the matron is to take care of the women's rest room. She is essen- tially a janitress, and does not perform any first aid functions. The matron falls within the classification of a maintenance employee. Accordingly, we shall include her in the unit. C. Watchmen and inspectors The election was held among employees in a unit upon which all parties had agreed.2 This unit excluded watchmen and inspectors. Accordingly, we shall adhere to the unit in which the election was held and exclude both watchmen and inspectors. D. Conclusions We find that all production and maintenance employees 3 of the Employer employed at its Gloversville, New York, plant, including the matron, but excluding inspectors, watchmen, stock clerks, nurses, office and clerical employees, plant engineers, working foremen '4 and all other supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, dis- charge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of 2 The Intervenor asserted at the post-election hearing that it had not agreed to exclude inspectors It should be noted, however, that the exclusion of inspectors was publicized before the election in the Notices of Election , and the Intervenor made no objection until after the election 3Includling Glenn Buyce, Frank Schneider , Anthony Vecchio , Robert Neil and Edna Oatnout. 4 John Garguilo and Dominick Cardella. 660 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 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 Inasmuch as we have found that four of the voters whose ballots were challenged were eligible to vote in the election, namely : Glenn Buyce, Frank Schneider, Anthony Vecchio and Edna Oathout, we shall direct the Regional Director to open and count their ballots. DIRECTION As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining with General Dry Batteries, Inc., Gloversville, New York, the Regional Director for the Third Region shall, pursuant to the Rules and Regulations of the Board, within ten (10) days from the date of,this Direction, open and count the ballots of Glenn Buyce, Frank Schneider, Anthony Vecchio and Edna Oath- out, and thereafter prepare and cause to be served upon the parties a Supplemental Tally of Ballots, including therein the count of said challenged ballots. CHAIRMAN HERZOG took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Direction.