Burgess Battery Co.

In the Matter of BURGESS BATTERY COMPANY, EMPLOYER and UNITED AUTOMOBILE WORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL, PETITIONER Case No. 13-R-4533.-Decided March 19, 1948 Sidley, Austin, Burgess and Harper, by Messrs. H. P. Robinson and Gordon W. Winks, of Chicago, Ill., for the Employer. Padway, Goldberg and Previant, by Mr. Saul Cooper, of Milwaukee, Wis., and Mr. Alex Peterson, of Rockford, Ill., for the Petitioner. DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held in Freeport, Illinois, on December 5, 1947, before Richard Swander, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prej- udicial 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-man panel consisting of the undersigned Board Members.* Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations Board makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER Burgess Battery Company, a Delaware corporation, is engaged in the manufacture of dry cell batteries at five plants which are located i At the hearing, the Employer contended that the petition was defective and should be dismissed because the Petitioner, while stating therein that another labor organization claimed to represent employees of the Employer in the alleged appropriate unit , did not disclose the identity of that other labor organization as was required in the petition The record shows that the Petitioner was the only labor organization to participate in this pro- ceeding we note in this connection , however, that the International Association of Machinists was served with a copy of the Notice of Hearing in this case , but that before the hearing , that labor organization advised the Board that it did not desire to participate in the proceeding, or have its name placed on the ballot in any election that might be ordered Under these circumstances , it can not be claimed that any prejudice resulted from the alleged defect. We shall , therefore , deny the motion to dismiss We find no merit to the Employer's further contention that the Petitioner is not in compliance with the statutory requirements enumerated in Section 9 (f), (g), and (h) of the Act. Petitioner is in fact in compliance with these statutory requirements . Matter of Lion Oil Company, 76 N. L It. B '565 *Chairman Herzog and Members Reynolds and Murdock. 76 N. L. R. B., No. 113. 820 BURGESS BATTERY COMPANY 821 in Freeport, Mineral Point, Monroe, Stockton, and Galena, Illinois. Annually, the Employer purchases more than $1,000,000 worth of raw materials, of which more than 70 percent is obtained from sources outside the State of Illinois. Annually, the Employer sells more than $1,000,000 worth of finished products, more than 80 percent of which is sold to out-of-State customers. The Employer admits and we find that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. IT. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED The Petitioner is a labor organization affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, claiming to represent employees of the Employer.2 III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION The Employer refuses to recognize the Petitioner as the exclusive bargaining representative of employees of the Employer until certified by the Board in an appropriate unit. We find that a 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. IV. TIIE APPROPRIATE UNIT The Petitioner seeks a unit composed of all the production and maintenance employees at the Freeport plant of the Employer, includ- ing plant clericals, cafeteria employees, truck drivers, inspectors, non- professional laboratory employees, and assistants to foremen, but ex- cluding supervisors, guards, and cffice clerical employees. The Em- ployer agrees that the categories of employees sought by the Petitioner ppropriate, but contends that the unit should be a multi-plant one, are, embracing the employees of the Employer's five plants at Freeport, Mineral Point, Monroe, Stockton, and Galena, Illinois. The Freeport plant, which is the largest of the Employer's five plants, contains the Employer's principal offices, and is referred to as the main plant. The other four plants are referred to as branch plants. There is a branch manager in charge of each branch plant whose duties and responsibilities are comparable to those of the plant 2 The Employer apparently contends that the Petitioner is not a labor organization with authority to represent the Employer 's employees . The term "labor organization" under the provisions of Section 2 (5) of the Act means "Any organization of any kind, or any agency or employee representation committee or plan , in which employees participate and which exists for the purpose , in whole or in part , of dealing with employers concerning grievances , labor disputes , wages , rates of pay , hours of employment , or conditions of work ." The record clearly indicates that the Petitioner is within the scope of this definition. 822 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD foremen in the Freeport plant. Both the branch managers and the plant foremen, however, are answerable to the Employer's general sup- erintendent and his two assistants whose offices are located in the Freeport plant. These latter three officials are responsible for the over-all management and labor relations policies in effect at all five plants. The same working rules, pay scales, bonus plans, and vaca- tion, hospital, and insurance benefits prevail in the five plants. The Freeport plant, moreover, receives all raw materials utilized by the five plants, ships all their finished products, keeps their records, and prepares their pay rolls. It would thus appear that the unit, in scope, may be one which includes employees at all five plants of the Employer. There are factors, however, which would justify a unit confined to the employees of the Freeport plant, apart from the employees in the branch plants. There is virtually no interchange of employees be- tween the Freeport plant and the branch plants. They are located from 20 to 65 miles from Freeport,' and the employees at each plant have little contact with each other. Seldom, if at all, are employees transferred from one plant to another. While production and labor relations policies for all plants are formulated in the offices of the Freeport plant, there is a separate supervisor immediately responsible for the hiring, discharge, and adjusting the grievances of the employees at each plant. In view of all the foregoing circumstances, and the fact that there is no history of collective bargaining, we are per- suaded that a unit confined to the employees of the Freeport, Illinois, plant of the Employer is appropriate 4 We find that all the production and maintenance employees of the Employer at its Freeport, Illinois, plant, including plant clericals, cafeteria employees, truck drivers, inspectors, nonprofessional labora- tory employees, and assistants to foremen, but excluding supervisors, guards, and office clerical employees, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. DIRECTION OF ELECTION As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Burgess Battery Company, Freeport, Illinois, an election by secret ballot shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later than thirty (30) days from the date of this Direction, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region, and subject to Sections 203.61 and 8 The approximate distances from the branch plants to the Freeport plant are as follows Mineral Point, 70 miles ; Galena, 50 miles ; and Stockton and Monroe each 20 miles 4 See Matter of Seneenole Manufacturing Company, 74 N. L R B. 1090; Matter of Ala- bama Textile Products Corp, et al., 73 N. L. R B. 1192. BURGESS BATTERY COMPANY 823 203.62 of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations- Series 5, among the employees in the unit found appropriate in Section IV, above, who were employed during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of this Direction, including employees who did not work during said pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation or temporarily laid off, but excluding those employees who have since quit or been discharged for cause and have not been rehired or rein- stated prior to the date of the election, and also excluding employees on strike who are not entitled to reinstatement, to determine whether or not they desire to be represented by United Automobile Workers of America, AFL, for the purposes of collective bargaining.