Armour & Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 19, 1948

76 N.L.R.B. 824 (N.L.R.B. 1948)

In the Matter of ARMOUR FERTILIZER WORKS, DIVISION OF ARMOUR &
COMPANY, EMPLOYER and INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTO-
MOBILE, AIRCRAFT & AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA
( CIO) , PETITIONER
Case No. 8-R-2704.-Decided March 19, 1948
Mr. E. B. Williamson, of Atlanta, Ga., and Mr. W. H. Woodward,
of Sandusky, Ohio, for the Employer.
Lamb, Goerlich cC Mack, by Mr. Lowell Goerlich, of Toledo, Ohio;
Mr. Reuben J. Harper, of Toledo, Ohio; and Mr. Cloid Lichty, of
Sandusky, Ohio, for the Petitioner.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at Sandusky,
Ohio, on January 13, 1948, before John A. Hull, Jr., hearing officer.
The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudi-
cial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
Armour Fertilizer Works, a division of Armour & Company, oper-
ates plants in approximately 10 States, wherein it is engaged in the
manufacture of superphosphate and commercial fertilizer, and sul-
phuric acid. At its Sandusky, Ohio, plant, the only plant involved
in this proceeding, the Employer annually uses raw materials, 75 per-
cent of which is shipped to the plant from points outside the State
of Ohio. During a similar period, the Employer manufactures at this
plant products valued in excess of $100,000, of which approximately
30 percent is shipped to points outside the State of Ohio.
We find that the Employer is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the Act.
'Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to
a three-man panel consisting of the undersigned Board Members [ Houston , Reynolds, and
Giay]
76 N. L. R. B, No. 114.
824
ARMOUR FERTILIZER WORKS 825
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Petitioner is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress of
Industrial Organizations, claiming to represent employees of the
Employer.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Employer refuses to recognize the Petitioner as the exclusive
bargaining representative of employees of the Employer until the
Petitioner 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) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
In accordance with the stipulation of the parties, we find that all
production and maintenance employees of the Employer at its plant
in Sandusky, Ohio, excluding office and clerical employees, watch-
men, salesmen, professional employees, the chief mechanic, the fore-
man, the assistant superintendent, the superintendent, the division
manager, and all other supervisors, 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 pur-
poses of collective bargaining with Armour Fertilizer Works, Division
of Armour & Company, Sandusky, Ohio, 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 super-
vision of the Regional Director for the Eighth Region, and subject to
Sections 203.61 and 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 reinstated prior to the date of the election, and
also excluding employees on strike who are not entitled to reinstate-
ment, to determine whether or not they desire to be represented by
International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft & Agricultural
Implement Workers of America (CIO), for the purposes of collective
bargaining.