Cameron Manufacturing Corp.

In the Matter of CAMERON MANUFACTURING CORPORAT ? ON, EMPLOYER and UNITED ELECTRICAL, RADIO AND MACHINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, C. I. 0., PETITIONER Case No. 6-R-1488-Decided January 20, 19117 Mr. Bird C. Carson, of Emporium, Pa., for the Employer. llessrs. Dion Roberta and Kenneth Wheaton, of Emporium, Pa., for the Petitioner. Mr. David C. Buchalter, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at Em- porium, Pennsylvania, on September 25, 1946, before Joseph Lepie, hearing officer. At the hearing the Employer moved to dismiss the petition. The hearing officer referred this motion to the Board for ruling thereon . For reasons stated below, the motion is hereby denied. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from preju- dicial error and are hereby affirmed. Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations Board makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER Cameron Manufacturing Corporation, a Pennsylvania corporation, operates plants in various parts of the Commonwealth of Pennsyl- vania, including a plant at Emporium, which is solely involved in this proceeding. The Employer engages at this plant in the manu- facture of manicure and pedicure instruments, and parts for radios, airplanes and electrical equipment. During the period from Sep- tember 1, 1945, to August 31, 1946, the Employer purchased for use at this plant, raw materials valued at approximately $100,000, of 72N.L R. B,No 37. 203 204 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD which in excess of 10 percent represented shipments to it from points outside the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. During the same period, the Employer manufactured finished products valued in excess of $100,000, of which in excess of 50 percent represented shipments to points outside the Commonwealth. The Employer admits and we find that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED The Petitioner is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, claiming to represent employees of the Employer. 111. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION The Employer refuses to recognize the Petitioner as the exclusive bargaining representative of employees of the Employer until the Petitioner 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 Petitioner, the current contractual bargaining representative of the Employer's rank and file production and maintenance em ployees at its Emporium, Pennsylvania, plant, seeks to represent the Employer's watchmen at this plant in a separate unit. The record discloses that there are three full-time watchmen on duty at the plant; one works a shift from 8 a. in. to 4 p. m.; another from 4 p. n1. to midnight; and the third from midnight to 8 a. in. They are neither armed, uniformed, nor deputized. Their duties con- sist of making the rounds of the premises to protect the Employer's property against fire, theft and trespass, of sweeping the plant prop- erty, of washing plant windows, and of firing the boilers during the winter months. While they do not have authority to make arrests, they are required to evict trespassers from the premises. They also have the monitorial function of reporting to their supervisor, the plant superintendent, or to the assistant manager of the plant, infractions by other employees of the Employer's rules. The Employer has taken no position with respect to the specific com- position of the unit sought. It does, however, urge the dismissal of the petition on the following grounds: (1) the watchmen are repre- J CAMERON MANUFACTURING CORPORATION 205 sentatives of management and cannot therefore constitute an appro- priate unit, (2) the Petitioner is estoppel from seeking to represent the watchmen because these employees are specifically excluded from the unit of production and maintenance employees covered by the Petitioner's current contract, and (3) the Petitioner may not repre- sent the watchmen because it is the present bargaining representative of its production and maintenance employees. We find no merit in the Employer's position. As to the first ground urged, we have heretofore held in numerous cases involving employees with similar duties as these watchmen that they are not identified with management, and in any event are "employees" within the meaning of the Act.' As to the contention that the contract bars an election at this time because it specifically excludes watchmen from its coverage, we have frequently said that the mere exclusion of such employees, without other reference thereto in the contract, does not constitute an undertaking on the part of the contracting union that it will not, for the term of its contract, admit watchmen into membership or otherwise seek to represent them in an appropriate unit apart from the produc- tion and maintenance employees.2 With respect to the Employer's final contention, it is clear that in the Monsanto Chemical Company case ,3 a majority of the Board reaffirmed prior unanimous holdings' that the benefits of the Act should not be denied to guards where they seek to be represented for collective bargaining purposes by the same labor organization which represents the employees over whom their monitorial functions are exercised, provided a separate unit is estab- lished.5 The principles enunciated in that case are equally applicable to the watchmen herein who have some monitorial duties. We find that the Employer's watchmen may function together for collective bargaining purposes. There remains for consideration one further question with respect to the composition of the unit. The record discloses that the Employer finds it necessary to supplement its watchman force on Saturdays and Sundays during the winter months so that the necessary heat may be maintained, and has in the past utilized the services of an employee who is regularly classified as a maintenance employee. It is, however, clear that this employee lacks a sufficient community of interest with 'Matter of Allis-Chalmers Manufacturing Company, La Porte Works, 67 N. L R B 1208, Matter of Cudahy Packing Company, 67 N L It B 150 'Matter of Florence Stove Company, Inc, 67 N L R B 146, and cases cited therein. Cf Matter of Briggs Indiana Corporation, 63 N L R B 1270 '71N L R B 11. 4 Matter of Seeger-Sunbeam Corporation, Evansville Division, 69 N L. R B 985 , Matter of Solar Manufacturing Company, 65 N. L R B. 1366 and cases cited therein. 5 See Matter of G cC A Aircraft, Inc, 71 N L R B 767. i 206 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the watchmen to be included in the same unit with them. For even during those periods when he works part-time as a watchman, he spends the major portion of his time working as a helper to other craftsmen. Moreover, it appears that he has been covered by the existing contract between the Employer and the Petitioner. We shall therefore exclude him from the unit hereinafter found appropriate. , Accordingly, we find that all watchmen at the Emporium, Pennsyl- vania, plant of the Employer, excluding the maintenance employee who serves as a part-time watchman and 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 bar- gaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. DIRECTION OF ELECTION As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Cameron Manufacturing Cor- poration, Emporium, Pennsylvania, 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 Director for the Sixth Region, acting in this matter as agent for the National Labor Relations Board, and subject to Sec- tions 203.55 and 203.56, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 4, 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 said pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation or temporarily laid off, and including employ- ees in the armed forces of the United States i ho present themselves in person at the polls, but excluding those employees who have since quit or been discharged for cause and have not been rehired or rein- stated before the date of the election, to determine whether or not they desire to be represented by United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America, C. I. 0., for the purposes of collective bargaining. MR. JAMES J. REYNOLDS, JR., took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Direction of Election.