Kelsey-Hayes Wheel Co.

In the Matter of KELSEY -HAYES WHEEL COMPANY and UNITED PLANT PROTECTION U NION , FEDERAL LABOR UNION 22321 , A. F. L. Case No. 7-R-1992.-Decided June 14, 1945 Mr. Rockwell T Gust, of Detroit, Mich., for the Company. Afr Joseph A. Padway, by Mr James A. Glenn, of Washington, D. C, for the AFL. Messrs. Maurice Sugar and Ernest Goodman, by 11,1r. Ernest Goodman, of Detroit, Mich., for the CIO. Hiss Ruth E Bliefield, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon a petition duly filed by United Plant Protection 0Union, Federal Labor Union 22321, A. F L , herein called the AFL, alleging that a ques- tion affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation of em- ployees of Kelsey-Hayes Wheel Company, Detroit, Michigan, herein called the Company, the National Labor Relations Board provided for an appro- priate hearing upon due notice before Max Rotenberg, Trial Examiner Said hearing was held at Detroit, Michigan, on April 18, 1945 The Com- pany, the AFL, and International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft & Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW-CIO); herein called the CIO, appeared and participated All parties were afforded full oppor- tunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to intro- duce evidence bearing on the issues. 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: 'At the hearing, the Trial Examiner granted the CIO's motion to intervene , without objection by .my of the parties. 62 N L. R. B., No. 60. 421 422 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY Kelsey-Hayes Wheel Company is a Delaware corporation with its prin- cipal offices in Detroit, Michigan. The Company owns and/or operates several manufacturing plants. The instant case involves its two plants in Detroit, Michigan, known as the Military and McGraw plants, respec- tively, and one at Plymouth, Michigan, known as the Plymouth plant, where it is engaged in the manufacture of war materials for the United States Government. During the calendar year 1944, the Company pur- chased for use in its Plymouth plant, with which, as hereinafter appears, we are solely concerned, raw materials valued in excess of $1,000,000, more than 50 percent of which was shipped from points outside the State of Michigan. During the same period the Company's finished or partially finished products at this plant were valued. in excess of $1,000,000, more than 50 percent of which was shipped to points outside the State. The Company admits, and we find, that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED United Plant Protection Union, Federal Labor Union 22321, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, and International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft & Agricultural Implement Workers of America, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, are labor or- ganizations admitting to membership employees of the Company. III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION By letter dated March 6, 1945, the AFL notified the Company of its claim to represent a majority of the plant-protection employees at the Plymouth plant, asserting also that it was filing with the Board a petition for certification of representatives. The Company stated on the record that it would not grant recognition to the AFL as the exclusive bargaining representative of the plant-protection employees at the Plymouth plaint until the AFL has been certified by the Board in an appropriate unit A statement of a Board agent, introduced into evidence at the hearing', indicates that the AFL represents a substantial number of employees in the unit hereinafter found appropriate.' We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen-concerning the 2 The Field Examiner reported that the AFL submitted 28 authorization cards, all of which bore the names of persons appealing on the Company 's pay roll of March 11, 1945 , which contained the names of 28 employees in the appropi late unit; and that the cards were dated March 1945 The Field Examiner reported further that the CIO submitted 26 initi ation and dues receipts, all of which bore the names of persons contained in the aforesaid pay ioll; and that 8 dues receipts were dated January 1945, 14 were dated February 1945, and 4 were dated March 1945. KELSrV-llAVES \T-1EEL CO v1PANY 423 representation of employees of the Company, within the meaning of Sec- tion 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT The AFL requests a unit of all plant-protection employees at the Com- pany's Plymouth plant, excluding all supervisory employees. The CIO contends that the requested unit is inappropriate for the reason that during the past several years the Company and the CIO have been bargaining on the basis of a three-plant unit consisting of all employees at the Mili- tary, McGraw, and Plymouth plants, including watchmen and plant guards, and excluding supervisory and office clerical employees. The Com- pany takes no position with respect to the unit issue. The Company's Military and McGraw plants are located in Detroit, Michigan, within close proximity of each other, and the Plymouth plant is located about 19 or 20 miles from the other 2 plants. With respect to the plant-protection personnel, the Company employs 13 watchmen at the Military plant, 22 watchmen at the McGraw plant, and 28 guards at the Plymouth plant. The watchmen employed at the Military and McGraw plants are a group of super-annuated employees, whose main duties con- sist of patrolling the premises to guard against sabotage and theft, check- ing to see that employees who arrive late sign the register, and, on specific request, conducting searches of examinations of employees. These em- ployees are not required to patrol for fire hazards, since the Company em- ploys a uniformed fireman who checks the two plants daily; nor are they charged with special duties in the case of emergencies arising in the plant, since all such emergencies are reported by the watchmen directly to the city police by means of plant signals, which are connected directly to the police station. The watchmen have never been uniformed, armed, or depu- tized ; they were militarized for a time but were demilitarized during 1944 The guards employed at the Plymouth plant, in addition to the property watching functions of the watchmen at the Military and McGraw plants and their function of guarding against fires, have duties which are moni- torial in nature. Thus, they examine the lunch pails of employees, and in certain cases the persons of employees themselves, to insure that no con- traband articles are brought into the plant; fill out reports regarding in- vestigations and arrests; search cars and trucks entering and leaving the plant; examine railway cars entering and leaving the plant; examine and question visitors to the plant for identification purposes and attend to the issuance of the proper pass to them for movement through the plant build- ings; and perform other special duties, as required by the Company. The guards employed at Plymouth are uniformed and armed, and were depu- tized at one time. Like the watchmen, the guards were once militarized, but were demilitarized during 1944. During the period of militarization 424 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the guards were required to take a considerable amount of special training, but no such requirement was made of the watchmen. All special training has, however, been discontinued since the demilitarization. As indicated above, the CTO adverts to its long bargaining history with the Company on the basis of the over-all three-plant unit, including the guards employed at the Plymouth plant, and contends that, for this reason, the requested unit is inappropriate. The Company has had bargaining re- lations with the CIO since 1937. During the period between March 1937 and March 1939 the Company dealt with the CIO as the exclusive repre- sentative of its production, maintenance, and plant-protection employees at the Military and McGraw plants. Thereafter, on December 26, 1939, as the result of a Board-directed election, the CIO became the certified . bargaining representative in the same two-plant unit.' In 1941, when the Plymouth plant was placed in operation by the Company, the CIO and the Company extended their bargaining to include the production and maintenance employees at that plant. Again, in 1942, when the Company hired its own plant-protection personnel at the Plymouth plant, the scope of the bargaining unit was expanded by the parties to include that group. No written agreement has ever been entered into between the parties, the understanding between them being embodied in the minutes of the weekly meetings between the Company and the, union representatives of these plants. The parties, it appears, have bargained concerning wages, hours, and conditions of work, and have in the course of their dealings agreed upon a grievance machinery, which has been used by the plant guards at Plymouth, as well as by other employees. Neither the Company nor the CIO asserts that the minutes of these meetings constitute a contract in bar of these proceedings; the CIO does however urge that this bargaining history on a multi-plant basis among the production, maintenance, and plant-protection employees precludes the Board from establishing the plant guards at the Plymouth plant as a separate unit. We do not agree. We are not persuaded, in the instant case, that the asserted bargaining history justifies departure from our policy of segregating monitorial guards, for collective bargaining purposes, from other employees in relation to whom they are monitorial. In our recent Decision in the Bethlehem Steel Corn- pany° case we discussed the status and functions of unmilitarized moni- torial guards, who have the same duties as the guards involved herein. In granting the petitioner's request for a separate unit of such guards, we adverted to the fact that these employees had separate problems and in- terests arising from their "peculiar occupation" and pointed out that by thus insulating their collective bargaining from the other employees with respect to whom they are monitorial their separate problems and interests S See Matter of Kelsey Hayes Wheel Company, 18 N. L R. B. 698 f Matter of Bethlehem Steel Company, 61 N L. R. B 892. 0 KELSEY-HAYES WHEEL COMPANY 425 would be protected. Almost contemporaneously therewith we decided the Pittsburgh Equitable Meter Company' case, involving unmilltarized and undeputized plant-protection employees without monitorial functions. In that case, the petitioner sought a unit of production and maintenance em- ployees and unmilitarized and undeputized watchmen. The watchmen were "not monitorial in their relation to other employees" and had not been in- cluded in the production and maintenance unit established under prior con- tracts. We there noted the lack of monitorial functions and held that, de- pending upon their desires in the matter, the watchmen might form part of the production and maintenance unit or function separately. It is there- fore clear from the foregoing cases that to grant the CIO's request in the premises would be to act in derogation of our policy of segregating plant- protection employees with monitarial functions, for collective bargaining purposes, from those employees whose conduct and activity they oversee. Accordingly since the guards at the Plymouth plant are monitorial in rela- tion to the other employees at the plant, and inasmuch as no reason appears for deviating from our above-stated policy, we are of the opinion that the plant guards at Plymouth constitute an appropriate unit. We find that all plant-protection employees of the Company at the Plymouth plant, excluding all 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 mean- ing of Section 9 (b) of the Act. V THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES We shall direct that the question concerning representation which has arisen be resolved by an election by secret ballot among the employees in the appropriate unit who were employed during the pay-roll period imme- diately 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 Relations Act, and pursuant to Article III, Section 9, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 3, as amended, it is hereby DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation to ascertain representatives 5 Matter of Pittsburgh Equitable Meter Company, 61 N L R B 880 See also Matter of Eastern Toot & Mfg Co, Inc. 61 N L R B. 1315 O The parties stipulated that lieutenants and chiefs are supervisory employees and that there are no persons holding the rank of sergeant 7 The names of the unions appear in the Direction of Election as stated by their respective repre- sentatives when enter ing appe.u ances in their behalf 426 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD for the purposes of collective bargaining with Kelsey-Hayes Wheel Corn- pany, Detroit, Michigan, 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 Direc- tor for the Seventh Region, acting in this natter as agent for the National Labor Relations Board, and subject to Article III, Sections 10 and 11, of said Rules and Regulations, among the employees in the unit found appro- priate 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 the said pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation or temporarily laid off, and including employees in the armed forces of the United States who present themselves in person at the polls, but excluding any who have since quit or been discharged for cause and have not been rehired or reinstated prior to the date of the election, to determine whether they desire to be represented by United Plant Protec- tion Union. Federal Labor Union 22321, A. F. L., or by United Automo- bile, Aircraft & Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW- CIO), for the purposes of collective bargaining, or by neither