Ball Brothers Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 21, 1943

52 N.L.R.B. 775 (N.L.R.B. 1943)

In the Matter of BALL BROTHERS COMPANY and FEDERATION OF GLASS,
CERAMIC & SILICA SAND WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO
Case No. R-5853.-Decided September 21, 1943
Messrs. A. M. Bracken and Myron H. Gray, both of Muncie, Ind.,
for the Company.
Messrs. Holmes, Lewis & Menendez, by Mr. William T. Lewis, of
Columbus, Ohio, and Messrs. Everett Kanatzar and Jack Reed, both
of Muncie, Ind., for the CIO.
Mr. Joseph A. Padway, by Mr. Robert. A. Wilson, of Washing-
ton, D. C., and Mr. Z. C. Wright, of Winchester, Ind., for the GBBA.
Mr. Glenn L. Moller, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon petition duly filed by Federation of Glass, Ceramic & Silica
Sand Workers of America, CIO, herein called the CIO, alleging
that a question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the repre-
sentation of employees of Ball Brothers Company, Muncie, Indiana,
herein called the Company, the National Labor Relations Board
provided for an appropriate hearing upon due notice before William
S. Shooer, Trial Examiner. Said hearing was held at Muncie,
Indiana, on August 19, 1943. The Company, the CIO, and Glass
Bottle Blowers Association of the United States and Canada, herein
called the GBBA, appeared, participated, and were afforded full
opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses,
and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues. The Trial
Examiner's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial
error and are hereby affirmed.
After the hearing the Company filed a motion for a further hear-
ing, and requested oral argument. In its motion for further
hearing, the Company set forth in detail, in the nature of an offer
of proof, the evidence which it seeks to present at a further hear-
ing. For the purposes of this Decision, we accept as true the evi-
52 N. L. R. B., No. 136
775
776 DECISIONS OF NArrrON'AL LABOR RELAMONISI BOARD
dentiary matter set forth in the motion (as distinguished from, the
argumentative portions thereof). The motion for further hearing
is therefore denied. The Company's request for oral argument is
also denied. All parties were afforded opportunity to file briefs
with the Board and all parties have filed briefs which the Board
has considered.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the follow-
ing :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Ball Brothers Company is engaged in the manufacture of glass
products, corrugated straw paper, rolled zinc and rubber products,
all used in the manufacture and shipment of glass products. The Com-
pany maintains factories at Muncie, Indiana, Okmulgee, Oklahoma,
Eaton, Indiana, Noblesville, Indiana, Huntington, West Virginia, and
Hillsboro, Illinois. Only the Muncie plant is involved in this proceed-
ing. Over 50 percent of the raw materials used at the Muncie plant is
shipped to the plant from points outside the State of Indiana and
over 50 percent of the finished products of the plant is shipped from
the plant to points,outside the State of Indiana.
The Company admits and we find that it is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Federation of Glass, Ceramic & Silica Sand Workers of America,
affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, is a labor
organization admitting to membership employees of the Company.
Glass Bottle Blowers Association-of the United States and Canada,
affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, is a labor organi-
zation admitting to membership employees of the Company.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
On or about July 13, 1943, the CIO requested, that the Company
recognize it as the exclusive bargaining representative of the Com-
pany's unskilled, or "Miscellaneous" employees. The Company has
refused to grant such recognition until the CIO has been certified
by the Board in an appropriate unit.
A statement of a Field Examiner for the Board, introduced into
evidence at the hearing, indicates that the CIO represents a sub-
stantial number of employees in the unit hereinafter found appro-
BALL BROTHERS COMPANY 777
priate.1 The GBBA relies upon a current closed-shop contract as
evidence of its interest.
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning
the representation of employees of the Company, within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The CIO contends that all employees of all departments of the
plant, except mold makers, mold repairmen , machine shop employees
(represented by the International Association of Machinists), super-
intendents, assistant superintendents, foremen, assistant foremen,
chemical engineers, chemists, assistant chemists, chief engineers, elec-
trical engineers, draftsmen, mechanical engineers , watchmen, brick-
layers, (represented by the American Bricklayers Union), salaried
employees, clerical help, and operators, constitute an appropriate bar-
gaining unit. The Company and the GBBA, without disputing the
propriety of the CIO's proposed grouping of occupational catego-
ries, contend that the unit sought by the CIO is appropriate only as
long as the employees therein continue to be represented by the GBBA.•
For the past 50 years the skilled operators in the glass industry
have been organized by the GBBA, and the mold makers and mold
repairmen have been organized for a like period by the American
Flint Glass Workers Union. These two unions are both affiliated with
the American Federation of Labor and have respected each other's
jurisdiction. Bargaining on behalf of these skilled groups is now
conducted on an industry-wide basis and they are covered by industry-
wide contracts. In 1937 the GBBA succeeded in organizing the re-
maining unskilled categories of employees in the glass industry in
a number of plants, including the plant here involved. The GBBA
gained recognition from the Company in 1937 as bargaining repre-
sentative of such employees and a contract was entered into covering
them. This contract has been renewed, with amendments, every
year since 1937 and annual negotiations were about to begin when
the CIO made its claim. The contracts between the Company and
the GBBA cover employees in the so-called Miscellaneous Depart-
ment, which corresponds exactly with the unit here sought by the
CIO. The CIO has not attempted to organize the skilled employees
presently represented by the GBBA and the Flint Glass Workers.
The Company's contention, that the unit is inappropriate unless
the employees therein are represented by the GBBA, is based upon
the theory that the skilled operators and mold repairmen must work
1 The Field Examiner reported that the CIO submitted 1,378 authorization cards bearing
apparently genuine original signatures of persons whose names were listed on the Company's
pay roll of July 20, 1943 , which contained the names of 2,682 employees in the appropriate
unit.
'778 DECISIONS OF NA(TPON'AL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
in very close cooperation with various employees in the Miscellaneous
group and that they would not cooperate if they were to be represented
by competing unions. That a considerable degree of cooperation is
necessary between the operators and mold repairmen, respectively,
and certain of the employees in the Miscellaneous group, cannot be
'questioned. Nor can it be doubted that the possibilities for friction
are increased when the employees are represented by rival unions.
However, we note that the employees in the machine shop, whose close
cooperation with the operators is essential to the successful conduct
.of the work, are represented by a separate union, the International
Association of Machinists. Moreover, as stated above, the Company
and the GBBA have themselves determined and fixed the unit in
-the course of 6 years of continuous collective bargaining. The oper-
ators belong to a local of the GBBA which is entirely separate from
the locals to which the employees in the Miscellaneous group belong,
and the operators bargain on an industry-wide basis whereas the
Miscellaneous group has always bargained on a plant-wide basis.
Minutes of the annual bargaining conferences between the Company
and the GBBA Miscellaneous locals indicate that the Miscellaneous
employees consider themselves to be quite separate and apart from
the operators, mold makers, and mold repairmen. There have been
frequent disputes between the skilled and unskilled employees over
questions of jurisdiction. Grievance machinery for the Miscellaneous
group is entirely separate from that of the skilled employees. The
locals meet separately and bargaining is conducted separately. Upon
'consideration of these facts we think it is patent that the unit pro-
posed by the CIO is appropriate for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining.2 It follows, of course, that the employees therein may be
-represented by any bargaining agent of their choice and may, at suit-
able intervals, change their representatives. To hold that they con-
,stitute an appropriate bargaining unit only so long as they are repre-
sented by a particular labor organization would be to nullify the
fundamental rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act.3
Between June and October of each year the Company has a peak
production period during which it employs a large number of addi-
tional employees, many of whom are students who quit voluntarily at
the end of the summer vacation period. Both the GBBA and the
CIO desire to exclude such students from the unit. It appears that
this year a large proportion of the employees hired for the peak sea-
son are high school students under 18 years of age. Those whose
2Matter of Universal Glass Products Company, 40 N. L. R. B. 1358; Matter of Hazel
.Atlas Glass Company, 46 N L. R B. 1391.
3 Matter of Chrysler Corporation , Highland Park Plant, 44 N. L. R B 881 ; Matter of
Bruggs Manufacturvng Company , 49 N. L. R. B. 57; Matter of Revere Copper and Brass
Inc, 51 N L. R. B. 350.
BALL BROTHERS COMPANY 779
tenure of employment is limited to the school vacation period and
whose interest in the selection of a bargaining representative is, there-
fore, slight, can be most readily identified by the fact that they are
working under what the parties herein term "school permits." In
accordance with the agreement of the unions, we shall exclude from
the unit the employees who are working under such permits.
We find that all employees of all departments in the Company's
Muncie, Indiana, plant, excluding the mold makers, mold repairmen,
operators, machine shop employees, bricklayers, chemical engineers,
chemists, assistant chemists, chief engineers, electrical engineers,
draftsmen, mechanical engineers, watchmen, salaried employees, of-
fice and clerical employees, employees working under school permits,
superintendents, assistant superintendents, foremen, assistant fore-
men, and any other supervisory employees who have authority to hire,
promote, discipline, discharge, or otherwise effect changes in the
status of 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
We shall direct that the question concerning representation which
has arisen be resolved by an election by secret ballot among the em-
ployees in the appropriate unit. The CIO has requested that eligi-
bility to vote in the election be determined by the Company's pay
roll of July 20, 1943, rather than by the customary pay roll next
preceding the date of the Direction of Election, on the ground that
there will be a substantial force reduction about September 15, 1943_
Under our normal practice, persons permanently discharged are in-
eligible to vote whereas employees temporarily laid off are eligible-
We believe that the eligibility of any employees affected by the antic-
ipated force reduction can best be determined by challenge at the
polls and we shall, in accordance with our usual practice, provide.
that the employees eligible to vote in the election shall be those who
were employed during the pay-roll period immediately preceding
the date of the Direction of Election herein, subject to the limitations
and additions set forth in the Direction.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
By virtue of and pursuant to, the power vested in the National
Labor Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Re-
lations Act, and pursuant to Article III, Section 9, of National Labor
Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 2, as amended, it is.
hereby
780 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation to ascertain representa-
tives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Ball Brothers
Company, Muncie, Indiana, and 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 Ninth Region, acting in this matter
as agent for the National Labor Relations Board, and subject to Arti-,
cle III, Sections 10 and 11, of said Rules and Regulations, 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, and including employees in the armed forces of the United
States who present themselves in person at the polls, but excluding
those employees who have since quit or been discharged for cause,
to determine whether they desire to be represented by Federation of
Glass, Ceramic & Silica Sand Workers of America, affiliated with the
Congress of Industrial Organizations, or by Glass Bottle Blowers
Association of the United States and Canada, affiliated with the
American Federation of Labor, for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining, or by neither.