The American Tobacco Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 10, 1951

93 N.L.R.B. 1323 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

THE AMERICAN TOBACCO COMPANY, INC. 1323
circumstances, we do not believe that the district managers have in-
terests in working conditions sufficiently different from those of the
remaining employees in their department to warrant placing them
in a separate bargaining unit.' As the only unit sought by the Peti-
tioner is inappropriate, we shall dismiss the petition.
Order
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
IIn view of the above findings , we deem it unnecessary to pass upon the alleged
supervisory status of district managers.
THE AMERICAN TOBACCO COMPANY, INC., CHARLESTON, SOUTH CARO-
LINA and FTA LOCAL 15, FOOD, TOBACCO, AGRICULTURAL AND ALLIED
WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, D. P. O. W. A." Case No. 10-RC-1003.
April 10, 1951
Decision and Certification of Representatives
Pursuant to the terms and conditions of a stipulation for certifica-
tion upon consent election, entered into by The American Tobacco
Company, Inc. (Charleston plant), herein called the Employer; by
FTA Local 15, Food, Tobacco, Agricultural and Allied Workers
Union of America, herein called Local 15; by the United Steelworkers
of America, C. I. 0., herein called the Steelworkers; and by the
Tobacco Workers International Union, A. F. of L., herein called the
A. F. of L., an election was conducted on September 14, 1950,
among the employees in the unit which the parties agreed was
appropriate.
As the results of the election were inconclusive, no choice on the
ballot having received a majority of the valid ballots cast, and as no
objections to the election were filed, the Regional Director, in ac-
cordance with Section 102.62 of the Rules and Regulations of the
National Labor Relations Board, directed that a, runoff election be
held on October 11, 1950, to determine whether the employees desired
to be represented for purposes of collective bargaining by Local 15
or by the A. F. of L., these organizations having received the largest
and second largest number of votes, respectively. At the close of
the runoff election a tally of ballots was furnished each of the parties
in accordance with the Board's Rules and Regulations. The tally
shows that 543 valid ballots were cast for Local 15, 489 were cast for
I The name of this organization has been changed in accordance with the evidence.
93 NLRB No. 225.
1324 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the A. F. of L., and 5 ballots were void. The A. F. of L. filed timely
objections to the runoff election.
On November 10, 1950, the Regional Director, in conformity witli
the Board's Rules and Regulations, issued and served on the parties
his report on election, runoff election, objections to runoff election,
and recommendation to the Board. In this report, the Regional
Director found that the objections of the A. F. of L. raised no substan-
tial or material issue, and recommended that the objections be dis-
missed. On November 16, 1950, the A. F. of L. filed exceptions to
the Regional Director's report and recommendation, and requested
that the Board issue a notice of a hearing and take evidence respecting
the exceptions.2 On January 17, 1950, the Board considered this
request and ordered a hearing, which was subsequently held on Feb-
ruary 20, 1951.
From the record it appears that in September 1950, the executive
board of Local 15 was advised that the parent union, Food, Tobacco,
Agricultural and Allied Workers Union of America, herein called the
FTA, was considering joining two other national labor organizations,
the United Office and Professional Workers of America and the Dis-
tributive Workers Union, to form a national union known as the
Distributive, Processing and Office Workers of America, herein called
the DPOWA. The executive board approved the proposed merger
at , special meeting and recommended approval to the membership.
A few days later, on September 13, members of Local 15 attending a
membership meeting and preelection rally unanimously approved the
proposed merger. The prospective change in affiliation of the parent
union was subsequently given wide publicity in a series of radio broad-
casts sponsored by the FTA, and also in leaflets and newspapers pub-
lished by the FTA, by the A.i`F. of L., and by the Steelworkers.
On October 7, 1950, 4 days before the election, the merger was
accomplished at a convention of the three national unions in New York
City. It does not appear that on the day of the election any consider-
able number of voters knew that the DPOWA had in fact been formed.
As the Board agents were not yet aware of the merger, the ballot did
not reveal that the merger had taken place.
The constitution of DPOWA provides that the membership of the
three founding unions shall comprise three separate divisions of
DPOWA, alternatively known by their former names. These divi-
sions are to "function" through subcommittees of the executive board,
composed of those members of the Board and tYiose officers of the
2 Although the Steelworkers had been eliminated on the first balloting, that organization
subsequently moved to set aside the elections and requested a hearing to develop evidence
of the same type offered by the A F of L . In order to obtain and consider all pertinent
facts and arguments , the Board permitted the Steelworkers to participate in this proceeding
• subsequent to the first election In view of the resolution of the issue raised herein
it is unnecessary to determine whether or not the Steelworkers would have been entitled
to a place on the ballot had a new election been ordered.
THE AMERICAN TOBACCO COMPANY, INC. 1325
DPON17A originating in the respective divisions. Local 15, however,
appears unaffected by any changes occurring in the FTA, and its
charter, bylaws, place of business, officers, executive board, structure,
and functions remain the same as before October 7, 1950.3 -
The A. F. of L. and the Steelworkers contend that the FTA was
formally dissolved when the DPOWA was formed, and that it had
ceased to exist at the time of the runoff election. They further con-
tend that the employees who voted were misled and could have been
given a proper choice among the competing labor organizations only
by the substitution of the DPO«'A for the FTA on the ballot. We
find these contentions to be without merit. It is amply clear from
the facts recited above that Local 15 has continued to exist and has
maintained its identity .4 It is also clear that the voting employees
were amply advised of the prospective change in affiliation of the
FTA. and were therefore not misled by the failure to note on the
ballot that the well-publicized merger of the parent union had just
occurred. Under these circumstances, we agree with the Regional
Director that the objections to the election of October 11, 1950, should
be, and they hereby are, dismissed.
As we have found the objections of the A. F. of L. and the Steel-
workers to be without merit, and because, as the tally shows, a majority
of ballots was cast for Local 15', Food, Tobacco, Agricultural and
Allied Workers Union of America, we shall certify that Union as the
exclusive bargaining representative of the employees in the appro-
priate unit.
Certification of Representatives
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that FTA Local 15, Food, Tobacco, Agricul-
tural and Allied Workers Union of America, D. P. O. W. A., has
been designated and selected by a majority of the employees of The
American Tobacco Company, Inc., at its Charleston, South Carolina,
plant in the unit set forth in paragraph 11 of the stipulation for cer-
tification upon consent election as their representative for the purposes
of collective bargaining and that, pursuant to Section 9 (a) of the
Act, the said organization is the exclusive representative of all the
employees in such unit for the purposes of collective bargaining with
respect Co rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other con-
ditions of employment.
MEMBER STYLES took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Certification of Representatives.
3 Local 15 requests that the initials DPOWA be added to its name in any certification
resulting from this proceeding , and to this extent it desires to change its name.
* See Harris -Woodson Co ., Inc., 85 NLRB 1215. In this case the Board , holding con-
tinuity of the employees ' own organization to be the governing test in determining
whether one labor organization is identical with another having a different name and
affiliation , issued a bargaining order in favor of a union which, subsequent to its proof
of majority status, made a change of affiliation which entailed the possibility of new
supervision and control of he financial and bargaining policies of the parent union.