Ball Brothers Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 20, 1951

96 N.L.R.B. 265 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

BALL BROTHERS COMPANY, INC. 265
We'do' not believe, however, that such fakcts establish an integration of
these various corporations of such a charade"r that we should regard
them, for jurisdictional purposes, as one integrated operation. Nor
do we believe that the nominal amount of the services rendered for
Government agencies calls for the application of our policy to assert
jurisdiction over enterprises which affect the national defense effort 6
We need not and do not decide whether or not the Employer,is en-
gaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. For, in any
event, we are of the view that it will not effectuate the policies of the
Act to assert jurisdiction in this case. We shall, therefore, dismiss
the petition.
Order
Upon the entire record in this case; the National Labor Relations
Board orders that the petition filed herein be, and it hereby is,
dismissed.
5 Cf. Westport Moving and Storage Co , 91 NLRB 902.
6 Including the Employer 's brief.
BALL BROTHERS COMPANY, INC.' and .FEDERATION OF GLASS, CERAMIC
& SILICA SAND WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER . Case No.
35-KC-536. September 20,19-51
Decision and Direction of Election
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9'(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Robert Volger, hearing
officer. The hearing off'icer's rulings made-at the hearing are free from
prejudicial 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-member
panel [Members Houston, Reynolds, and Styles].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain
employees of the"Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion, of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9
(c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4', The appropriate unit : - }
The petitioner seeks to add the garage employees at the Employer's
Muncie,"Indiana, plant, to-the production and maintenance unit which
it currently represents. In the alternative, the Petitioner would repre-
1 The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing.
96 NLRB No. 43. -
266 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
sent these employees in a separate unit. The Employer agrees that
the garage employees may constitute a separate appropriate unit, but
opposes their inclusion in the same unit as the production and mainte-
nance employees.
The Employer is engaged in the manufacture, and, distribution of
containers throughout the United States. Only its plant at Muncie,
Indiana, is involved in this proceeding. At this plant, the machinists,
mold makers, operators of glass forming machines, and machine re-
pairmen are currently represented in separate units by various labor
organizations other than the Petitioner. The Petitioner is the repre-
sentative of the remainder of the production and maintenance employ-
ees, other than the garage employees, who have never been bargained
for in any of the existing units.
The garage employees work under the supervision of the garage
superintendent who reports directly to the vice president. Although
most of these employees are classified as mechanics or mechanic
helpers, the record does not indicate the extent of the skill. possessed by
them. They appear, however, to perform the usual duties of garage
employees in connection with maintaining and servicing the Em-
ployer's trucks and cars. Twelve of the 25 employees in the garage
also spend a part of their time as chauffeurs for the officers of the
Employer, and some of their work includes the repair of equipment
shipped in from the Employer's other plants. Although garage em-
ployees, unlike the plant employees, already represented by the Peti-
tioner, are paid on a salary basis, we perceive no such distinction in
the interests of the two groups as would militate against their merger
into a single unit. Under all the circumstances, we conclude that the
garage employees may appropriately be added to the production and
maintenance unit, as initially requested by the Petitioner.2
There remains for consideration the unit placement of the fol-
lowing employees, whom the Petitioner would exclude from the voting
groups, and the Employer would include.
Marion Clark begins his work in the middle of the second shift
and works partly through the third shift. Before leaving the garage
at the end of the first shift, the superintendent assigns work for
the second and third shifts. Although Clark assigns any emer-
gency work that comes in during the night, the record indicates
that such assignment of work requires no exercise of independent
judgment. Clark spends about 25 percent of his time allocating work,
answering the phone, instructing the other employees in, the perform-
ance of their work, and keeping records of the work performed by
the other employees, which are turned over to the superintendent.
2 See Metz Baking Company, 92 NLRB 108.
BALL BROTHERS COMPANY, INC. '267
He spends the remaining 75 percent of his time as a mechanic. The
Petitioner contends that he is a supervisor.
We believe that Clark does not possess the authority responsibly to
direct the work of other employees, but acts essentially as a conduit
for instructions from the superintendent to the other employees,
in the relationship of a more skilled to a less skilled employee. Nor
does he have the authority to take any personnel action with respect to
any employees or to make effective recommendations concerning
changes in their employment status. We conclude that Clark is not
a supervisor and may be included in the unit .3
James Kelly works as a gardener for the Employer's vice president
during the summer months, but returns to the garage during the
winter months and during periods of inclement weather in the sum-
mer. The record indicates that he spends more than 50 percent of his
time working in the garage. During the summer, he reports weekly to
the garage and turns in his time card. Although the Employer pays .
him his entire salary, it is reimbursed by the vice president for the
personal services rendered by Kelly.
As Kelly spends more than 50 percent of his time as a garage em-
ployee, we find that he has a sufficient interest in the terms and condi-
tions of employment to warrant including him in the unit and per-
mitting him to vote in the election 4
Jack Rosenbaum is classified as a mechanic-clerk. All of his reg-
ular working time is devoted to clerical duties such as ordering parts
and acting as a stock clerk. In addition, about every fifth Saturday
and Sunday, he works as a mechanic. We find that Rosenbaum is a
plant clerical, such as the Board has customarily included in produc-
tion and maintenance units 5 Accordingly, we shall permit him to
vote.
William Truitt is on call as a private chauffeur, subject to the con-
venience of an official of the Employer, Mrs. George Ball. The record
indicates that he works in the garage only at those times when his
services are not requested by his regular employer. Although Truitt
is paid by the Employer, Mrs. Ball reimburses the Employer for the
time Truitt works for her as a chauffeur.
As Truitt spends a portion of his time in the same type of work
as other employees in the voting group, he may be included in the
unit so far as his duties as a garage employee are concerned. How-
ever, as he is apparently employed in the garage less than 50 percent
of his working time, and with no degree of regularity, we conclude
that he does not have a sufficient interest in the terms and conditions
Van RaaZte Company, Incorporated , 95 NLRB No . 135, and cases cited therein.
4 Pine Hall Brick & Pine Company, 93 NLRB 362. See Courtland Manufacturing Com-
pany, 95 NLRB 1292 ; Valley Tractor and Equipment Company, 92 NLRB 240.
Truscon Steel Company, 95 NLRB 1005; Fosttr Wheeler Corporation, 94 NLRB 211.
268 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of employment to entitle him to a voice in the selection of a bargaining
representative.'
We shall therefore direct an election in the following voting group :
All garage employees at the Employer's Muncie plant, excluding
guards, professional employees, and supervisors as defined in the
Act.
If a majority of these employees vote for the Petitioner, they will
be taken to have indicated their desire to be included in the production
and maintenance unit currently represented by the Petitioner, and the
Petitioner may bargain collectively for such employees as part of
such unit.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this vol-
ume.]
BETTS CADILLAC OLDS, INC. and LODGE No. 254 OF THE INTERNATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS
BRADY MOTORS, INC. and LODGE No. 254 OF THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIA-
TION OF MACHINISTS
CHAMBERS MOTOR Co. and LODGE No. 254 OF THE INTERNATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS
CRESCENT CHEVROLET COMPANY and LODGE No. 254 OF THE INTERNA-
TIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS
DES MOINES NASH COMPANY, INC. and LODGE No. 254 OF THE INTERNA-
TIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS
FRIEDMAN MOTORS, INC. and LODGE No. 254 OF TIIE INTERNATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS
GAMBS-HOLMES MOTOR Co. and LODGE No. 254 OF THE INTERNATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS
GOODMAN MOTOR COMPANY and LODGE No. 254 OF THE INTERNATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS
HUDSON-JONES AUTO COMPANY and LODGE No. 254 OF THE INTERNA-
TIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS
JENSEN-DUNN COMPANY and LODGE No. 254 OF THE INTERNATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS
MANBECK MOTOR SALES Co. and LODGE No. 254 OF THE INTERNATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS
PAUL MANNING CHEVROLET and LODGE No. 254 OF TIIE INTERNATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS
e See Van Raalte Company , Inc., supra.
96 NLRB No. 46,