General Dry Batteries, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 12, 1946

71 N.L.R.B. 656 (N.L.R.B. 1946)

In the Matter of GENERAL DRY BATTERIES, INC., EMPLOYER and UNITED
ELECTRICAL, RADIO & MACHINE WORKERS OF AMERICA (CIO), PE-
TITIONER
Case No. 3-R-1244.-Decided November J. 1946
Mr. Edwin Lavergne, of Gloversville, N. Y., for the Employer.
Mr. Charles Rivers, of Schenectady, N. Y., for the Petitioner.
Mr. Harold W. Ward, of Gloversville, N. Y., for the Intervenor.
Mr. Sydney S. Asher, Jr., of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, the.National Labor Relations Board on
June 13, 1946, conducted a prehearing election among employees of the
Employer in the alleged appropriate unit, to determine whether they
desired to be represented by the Petitioner, or by the Intervenor, for
the purposes of collective bargaining, or by neither.
At the close of the election, a Tally of Ballots was furnished the
parties. The Tally shows that there were approximately 280 eligible
voters, of whom 116 voted for the Petitioner, 124 voted for the Inter-
venor, 6 voted against both organizations, and 7 voted under challenge.
Thereafter, a hearing was held at Gloversville, New York, on June
26, 1946, before Francis X. Helgesen, hearing officer. The hearing
officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and
are hegeby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations
Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
General Dry Batteries, Inc., is an Ohio corporation, with principal
offices located in Cleveland, Ohio. It operates factories in several
cm ties of the United States, Including a plant in Gloversville, New York,
which is the only plant involved in this proceeding. At Gloversville,
the Employer is engaged in the manufacture of dry cell batteries.
71N L R R, No 102
656
GENERAL DRY BATTERIES, INC. 657
During the calendar year 1945, the Employer purchased for its Glovers-
ville factory raw materials valued at approximately $430,000, about 75
percent of which was shipped to the plant from points outside the State
of New York. During the same period, it sold from this plant finished
products valued at approximately $1,375,000, about 75 percent of which
was shipped from the Gloversville factory to points outside the State.
The Employer admits, and we find, that it is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The Petitioner is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress
of Industrial Organizations, claiming to represent employees of the
Employer.
Adironack Leather Workers' Union, herein called the Intervenor,
is an unaffiliated labor, organization, claiming to represent employees
of the Employer.
In. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Employer refuses to recognize either the Petitioner or the
Intervenor as the exclusive bargaining representative of employees of
the Employer until one of them 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) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The prehearing election was held among all production and main-
tenance employees at the Gloversville plant, excluding office and cleri-
cal employees, watchmen, inspectors, the plant engineer, the nurse,
foremen, and supervisors. At the hearing, issues arose as to the inclu-
sion in or exclusion from the unit of (1) the seven employees whose
votes were challenged and (2) the matron, the inspectors, and the
watchmen, who did not vote.
A. The challenged ballots
The ballots of Glenn Buyce, Frank Schneider, Anthony Vecchia,
Dominick Cardella and John Garguilo were challenged by the Inter-
venor on the ground that they were supervisory employees. The Peti-
tioner contends that all of these employees are non-supervisory em-
ployees who should be included within the unit, while the Employer
maintains that Cardella and Garguilo are supervisory employees, but
658 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that the other three employees in question are non-supervisory pro-
duction employees.
John Garguilo is the working foreman in charge of the non-
productive department consisting of 25 employees. He supervises the
work of janitors and watchmen, and of the bull gang. The testimony
reveals that he can effectively recommend changes in the status of
the employees working under him. We are of the opinion that he
is a supervisory employee within the meaning of our usual definition
and, therefore, excluded from the unit. Accordingly, we hereby sus-
tain the challenge to his ballot.
Dominick Cardella is the working foreman in charge of the em-
ployees in the shipping department. He supervises three employees
engaged in the packaging of batteries. In addition, he keeps records
of shipments. He can recommend the hiring, promoting, discharging,
or disciplining of the employees working under him, and his recom-
mendations are generally followed by the Employer. We find that
he is a supervisory employee within the usual meaning of our defi-
nition and, as such, excluded from the unit. We hereby sustain the
,challenge to his ballot.
Frank Schneider, Anthony Vecchio, and Glenn Buyce 1 were classi-
fied by the Employer as working foremen, in order to obtain approval
from the War Labor Board for pay increases granted to them. Al-
though they possess higher skills than other production employees,
it is clear from the record that they have no authority effectively to
recommend changes in the status of any other employees. Inasmuch
as these employees are non-supervisory production employees, they
are included in the unit. Accordingly, we hereby overrule the chal-
lenges to their ballots.
Frank Dittmar was challenged by the Intervenor on the ground
that he is a clerical employee and, therefore, excluded from the unit.
The Employer agrees with the Intervenor's position, but the Peti-
tioner maintains that this employee is included in the unit. Dittmar
is classified as a stock clerk. He is in charge of the stock room. He
spends approximately 80 percent of his time doing clerical work.
Except for a 2-week period each year, he has no subordinates. All
the parties agreed that Frank Conroy, a factory office clerk, is ex-
cluded from the unit. Conroy, like Dittmar, is a plant clerical em-
ployee. In view of the exclusion of office and clerical employees from
the unit, an exclusion which was agreed to by all parties, and the
interpretation given to that phrase by the parties in the case of Con-
roy, we regard Dittmar as being excluded from the unit. Accord-
ingly, we hereby sustain the challenge to his ballot.
IRobert Neil also belongs In this categoiv However, he appalentiv did not palticipste
in the election
GENERAL DRY BATTERIES, INC. 659
Edna Oatliout was challenged by the Petitioner on the -round that
she is an inspector. The Employer and the Intervenor maintain that
she is not an inspector, but is a production employee whose vote
should be counted. The record reveals that she spends about 80
percent of her time as a production worker and approximately 20
percent as an inspector of batteries returned to the factory by dis-
satisfied customers. Her wages are approximately the same as those
paid to other production employees. Oathout is primarily a produc-
tion worker. Her duties with respect to the inspection of batteries
are a relatively minor part of her total duties. We are of the opinion
that she is included within the unit as a production worker. We
hereby overrule the challenge to her ballot.
B. The matron
The Intervenor desires that the matron be included within the
appropriate unit. The Petitioner seeks to exclude the matron from
the unit on the ground that the plant nurse was excluded by agree-
ment of the parties, and that the matron performs duties similar
to those of the plant nurse. The record reveals that the principal duty
of the matron is to take care of the women's rest room. She is essen-
tially a janitress, and does not perform any first aid functions. The
matron falls within the classification of a maintenance employee.
Accordingly, we shall include her in the unit.
C. Watchmen and inspectors
The election was held among employees in a unit upon which all
parties had agreed.2 This unit excluded watchmen and inspectors.
Accordingly, we shall adhere to the unit in which the election was
held and exclude both watchmen and inspectors.
D. Conclusions
We find that all production and maintenance employees 3 of the
Employer employed at its Gloversville, New York, plant, including
the matron, but excluding inspectors, watchmen, stock clerks, nurses,
office and clerical employees, plant engineers, working foremen '4 and
all other supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, dis-
charge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of
2 The Intervenor asserted at the post-election hearing that it had not agreed to exclude
inspectors It should be noted, however, that the exclusion of inspectors was publicized
before the election in the Notices of Election , and the Intervenor made no objection until
after the election
3Includling Glenn Buyce , Frank Schneider , Anthony Vecchio , Robert Neil and Edna
Oatnout.
4 John Garguilo and Dominick Cardella.
660 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
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
Inasmuch as we have found that four of the voters whose ballots
were challenged were eligible to vote in the election, namely : Glenn
Buyce, Frank Schneider, Anthony Vecchio and Edna Oathout, we
shall direct the Regional Director to open and count their ballots.
DIRECTION
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the
purposes of collective bargaining with General Dry Batteries, Inc.,
Gloversville, New York, the Regional Director for the Third Region
shall, pursuant to the Rules and Regulations of the Board, within ten
(10) days from the date of,this Direction, open and count the ballots
of Glenn Buyce, Frank Schneider, Anthony Vecchio and Edna Oath-
out, and thereafter prepare and cause to be served upon the parties a
Supplemental Tally of Ballots, including therein the count of said
challenged ballots.
CHAIRMAN HERZOG took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Direction.