Burgess Battery Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 19, 1948

76 N.L.R.B. 820 (N.L.R.B. 1948)

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.