Armour and Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 11, 1950

92 N.L.R.B. 641 (N.L.R.B. 1950)

In the Matter of ARMOUR FERTILIZER WORKS, DIVISION OF ARMOUR AND
COMPANY,' EMPLOYER and OIL WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION,
CIO, PETITIONER
Case No. 5-RC-7.36.-Decided December 11, 1950
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Henry L. Segal, hearing of-
ficer. 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 :
1. The Employer is an Illinois corporation with 26 commercial fer-
tilizer plants located- throughout the United States. The plant in-
volved in the instant petition is situated at Buell, Virginia. Of
$200,000 yearly sales from this plant, 50 percent is shipped directly to
points outside the State of Virginia. On the basis of these facts we
find that the Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning
of the Act. We further find that it will effectuate the policies of the
Act for the Board to assert jurisdiction in this case 2
.2. The labor organization named below claims to represent certain
employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of certain 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 Petitioner seeks a unit composed of all the production and
maintenance employees, excluding office clerical employees, guards
and supervisors as defined in the Act. The Employer agrees with
the Petitioner but would have the unit description specify the ex-
clusion of a number of supervisory categories. However, we believe
that the general exclusion of supervisors from the unit, as proposed
by the Petitioner, is adequate.3
' The Employer 's name appears as amended at the hearing.
2 The Borden Company, 91 NLRB 628; Stanislaus Implement and Hardware Co., Ltd.,
91 NLRB 618.
There is no evidence in the record on which to base a finding as to the supervisory
status of the specific categories of employees named in the Employer 's proposed unit
description.
92 NLRB No. 116.
641
642 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
We find that all production and maintenance employees at the Em-
ployer's Buell, Virginia, plant, excluding office clerical employees,
guards, and supervisors,' constitute a unit appropriate for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b)
of the Act.
5. Determination-of representatives:
The Employer is not manufacturing commercial fertilizer at the
present time. On October 22,1950, 70 percent of the Employer's plant
was destroyed by fire. The Employer plans to rebuild as soon as
possible. Meanwhile all of the approximately 25 production and
maintenance workers employed immediately preceding the fire have
been employed in cleaning up debris around the plant prior to re-
construction. It is expected that reconstruction will be completed
within 1 year and that the 25 employees who now constitute the perma-
nent complement will be retained as laborers during the construction
period and thereafter.
The Employer's fertilizer manufacturing operations are seasonal.
The number of production and maintenance employees in the instant
plant normally varies from 20 to 25 in slack seasons to 75 during the
busy season, which lasts 3 to 4 months. However, as already indi-
cated, it is not expected that the Employer will resume its fertilizer
manufacturing operations for approximately 1 year. The workers
presently employed appear to be representative of those who will be
employed during the next year. We will accordingly direct an im-
mediate election.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
CHAIRMAN HERZOO and MEMBER MURDOCK took no part in the con-
sideration of the above Decision and Direction of Election.
4 The record discloses that one employee of the Employer, formerly classified as a
mechanic , had at one time been placed in charge of other men . This employee is not now
employed as a supervisor and there is no evidence that he will be so employed in the
future. We find that he is not a supervisor and shall include him in the unit.