Armour Fertilizer Works

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 7, 1946

66 N.L.R.B. 365 (N.L.R.B. 1946)

In the Matter of ARMOUR FERTILIZER WORKS, DIVISION OF ARMOITR
AND COMPANY, A CORPORATION and INDU:TRIAL UNION OF MARINE AND
SIIIPBUILDINC; WORKERS OF AMERICA , C. I. O.
Case No. 5-fl-,9111.-Decided March 7, 1946
Mr. Charles J. Regero, of Jacksonville , Fla., and Mr. O'Dell
Williams, of Wilmington, N. C., for-the Company.
Mr. Bruce E. Davis, of Wilmington, N. C., and Mr. James Simone,
of Newport News, Va., for the Union.
Mr. Elmer P. Freischlag, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF TIIE CASE
Upon an amended petition duly filed by Industrial Union of Marine
and Shipbuilding Workers of America, C. I. 0., herein called the
Union, alleging that a question affecting commerce had arisen con-
cernilg the representation of employees of Armour Fertilizer Works,
Division of Armour and Company, a corporation, Navassa, North
Carolina, herein called the Company,' the National Labor Relations
Board provided for an appropriate hearing upon due notice before
George L. Weasler, Trial Examiner. The hearing was held at
Wilmington, North Carolina, on November 30, 1945. The Company
and the Union appeared and participated. All parties were afforded
full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses,
and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues. During the hearing,
the Company moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that it
was not engaged in interstate commerce. The motion was referred
to the Board. For the reasons appearing hereinafter, the motion
is denied. The Trial Examiner's rulings made at the hearing are
free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. All parties
were afforded opportunity to file briefs with the Board.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
I The name appears as amended at the hearing.
66 N. L . R. B., No. 46.
365
366 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Armour Fertilizer Works, Division of Armour and Company, an
Illinois corporation, operates, among others, a plant at Navassa,
North Carolina, the only plant involved in this proceeding. At its
Navassa plant, the Company is engaged in manufacturing fertilizer
and fertilizer materials . During the year 1944, the Company pur-
chased raw materials consisting mainly of tankage, ammonium
sulphate, potash, ammonium nitrate of soda, sulphur, and phosphate
rock, valued at approximately $2,000,000, of which about 90 percent
was purchased and shipped to its Navassa plant from outside the
State of North Carolina. During the same period, the Company
manufactured fertilizer and fertilizer materials valued at approxi-
mately $3,000,000, of which about 19 percent represented sales and
shipments to points outside the State.
We find, contrary to the contention of the Company, that it is
engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Re-
lations Act .2
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Industrial Union of Marine and Shipbuilding Workers of America
is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress of Industrial
Organizations, admitting to membership employees of the Company.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
On September 21, 1945 , the Union advised the Company by letter
that it represented a majority of the Company's employees at its
Navassa plant and requested that the Company recognize it as the
bargaining agent for such employees . At the hearing , the Company
stated that it would not recognize the petitioner unless and until
it was certified by the Board in an appropriate unit.
A statement of a Board agent, introduced into evidence at the
hearing, indicates that the Union represents a substantial number
of employees in the unit hereinafter found appropriate .3
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.
5 See Jr. L. Brandeis A Sons v. N. L. R . B., 142 F. (2d) 977 (C. C. A. 8), enf'g 53
N. L. R. B . 352, cert . denied 323 U. S. 751; Santa Cruz Fruit Packing Co. v. N. L. R. B.,
303 U. S. 453.
& The Field Examiner reported that the Union submitted 118 cards ; that the Com-
pany declined to submit a copy of its pay roll ; and that there were approximately 150
employees in the appropriate unit.
ARMOUR FERTILIZER WORKS
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
367
The Company and the Union agree that all production and mainte-
nance employees at the Navassa plant, excluding office employees,
plant guards, watchmen, supervisors, managers, officers, foremen, and
all other supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, dis-
charge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of em-
ployees, or effectively recommend such action, constitute an appro-
priate unit.4 The sole dispute between the parties relates to the
chemist and the two assistant chemists, whom the Company would
include in, and the Union exclude from, the unit.
These three employees work in a laboratory, which is a separate
building not regularly used by the other employees sought by the
Union. The chemist is a registered chemist licensed under the laws
of the State of North Carolina. His job entails the making of
analyses of fertilizer materials received at the plant and of finished
products shipped from the plant. His prime function is to see that
the products sold meet certain company standards and comply with
Federal and State statutory requirements. He is directly responsible
to the Plant Superintendent, whereas the production and maintenance
employees are subject to the immediate supervision of foremen in
their respective departments. The two assistant chemists work under
the supervision of the chemist, and perform the same duties as the
chemist. They are neither registered chemists nor pharmacists, nor
have they had any particular education along those lines, other
than the practical training received in the plant laboratory. It is
clear, however, that, despite their lack of formal academic training,
they fall within the classification of technicians. Under all the
circumstances, we are of the opinion that the chemist and assistant
chemists are technical employees, whose work, working conditions,
and interests are dissimilar from those of the production and
maintenance employees. We shall, therefore, exclude them from the
unit.5
In accordance with the agreement of the parties and our foregoing
determination, we find that all production and maintenance em-
ployees of the Company at its Navassa, North Carolina, plant, but
excluding office employees, plant guards, watchmen, the chemist,
assistant chemists, supervisors, managers , officers, foremen, and all
or any other supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote,
discharge, discipline, 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.
4 The amended petition was further amended at the hearing to exclude watchmen
from the appropriate unit.
G Matter of B. I. du Pont de Nemour8 A Co., Inc ., 62 N. L. R. B. 146.
368 DECISIONS OF,NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
V. THE DETER31INATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
We, shall direct that the question concerning representation which
has arisen be resolved by an election by secret ballot among employees
in the appropriate, unit 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 p}Ii