Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc.

JOSEPH E. SEAGRAM & SONS, INC. 101 ployees of Stokely Foods, Inc., in the unit heretofore found appro- priate, within the meaning of Section 9 (a) of the National Labor Relations Act. CHAIRMAN HERZOG and MEMBER PETERSON took no part in the con- sideration of the above Supplemental Decision and Certification of Results of Election. JOSEPH E. SEAGRAM & SONS , INC. and INTERNATIONAL GUARDS UNION OF AMERICA, LOCAL No. 17, PETITIONER. Case No. 9-RC-1466. October. 4,1952 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 Bernard Marcus, hear- ing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. 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 em- ployees 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) andSection 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The Petitioner seeks to represent a unit of guards at the Em- ployer's Lawrenceburg plant and Milan warehouse, both in Indiana. Alternatively, it asks for a unit which also includes guards at the Kings Mills and Middletown, Ohio, warehouses. The Employer contends that a unit which does not include guards at all of its plants is not .appropriate. The Employer, a liquor manufacturer, operates 15 plants and ware- houses in Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. At Louisville, Kentucky, the Employer maintains its central produc- tion offices under the direction of a vice president in charge of produc- tion. The central production offices include such departments as purchasing, industrial relations, industrial education, labor relations, and safety. Heads of these departments determine policy for the entire organization. The effectuation of that policy is, however, to a considerable extent left to local plant officials. An applicant for a position as guard files his application at one of the plants. He is hired at the plant either for work at the plant of his 101 NLRB No. 37. 102 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD application or for another. His employment is considered proba- tionary until his application has been approved by officials at Louis- ville and by the bonding company. During the first year of his employment, depending upon an effi- ciency rating given by the plant chief of police, the new guard receives wage increases at prescribed intervals. These periodic increments can be withheld only with the consent of the director of industrial rela- tions at Louisville. All proposed salary increases in excess of those prescribed must be centrally approved. Local plant officials have the authority to discharge guards for certain offenses, such as intoxication or theft. To discharge for other offenses, they must consult with officials at Louisville. Local officials also have the authority to promote a guard to the rank of sergeant, but promotions above that rank are decided upon at the central production offices. Grievances are handled at the plant level. All guards, except those employed at six small Kentucky plants, receive the same rate of pay. There is no history of collective bargaining for any of the Em- ployer's plant guards. There is, however, an extensive history of bargaining for most of the Employer's other employees. Over a period of 15 years, the Employer has bargained collectively on a multiplant, employer-wide basis with various labor organizations representing 11 classifications of employees. The Employer's director of labor relations, located at the central production offices , has con- ducted all negotiations on behalf of the Employer. In 1949 the Board held that a unit of guards limited to those at the Lawrenceburg plant was not appropriate. The principal basis of the decision was the long-established bargaining history for other employees on a multiplant, company-wide basis? The facts in this case are similar to those existing when the earlier case was decided, except that the Employer has added warehouses at Milan, Indiana, and Kings Mills and Middletown, Ohio.3 The Board is satisfied that the earlier Seagram doctrine, which in practice required one group of employees to organize on a multiplant basis wherever other types of employees had previously organized I Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc., 83 NLRB 167 (Members Houston and Gray dissent- ing) 1949. "As was pointed out in the recent Seagram case, in determining the appropriateness of a proposed unit for a special classification of employees , the Board deemed controlling the over-all bargaining pattern established for other employees of the Employer ." Northwest Freight Lines, Inc., 84 NLRB 223, 224. 8 The warehouses in Milan , Kings Mills, and Middletown appear to be satellites of the Lawrenceburg plant. They are all located within 50 miles of Lawrenceburg The per- sonnel manager of the Lawrenceburg plant acts in the same capacity for the three ware- houses Guards at the warehouses are in charge of sergeants , who in turn report to the- chief of police in charge of Lawrenceburg plant guards. JOSEPH E. SEAGRAM & SONS, INC. 103 themselves on that basis, should no longer be followed in every instance. Section 9 (b) provides: The Board shall decide in each case whether, in order to assure to employees the fullest freedom in exercising the right guaranteed by this Act, the unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bar- gaining shall be the employer unit, craft unit, plant unit, or subdivision thereof. Apart from special provisions for professional employees, craft employees, and guards, the only statutory limitation upon the Board's authority to decide whether the "employer unit, craft unit, plant unit, or subdivision thereof" is appropriate, is contained in Section 9 (c) (5). This specifies that "In determining whether a unit is appropriate for the purposes specified in subsection (b) the extent to which the em- ployees have organized shall not be controlling." But, while extent of organization cannot be given controlling weight in making unit deter- minations, it can be considered as a factor in such determinations 4 In the present case, if there were no history of collective bargaining for any of the Employer's employees, the Board would surely find appropriate a unit of guards at 1 of the Employer's plants, because of the geographic dispersal of the plants over 5 States and also the degree of local control 5 For the Board to continue to insist that employees who seek to organize for the first time do so only in a unit comprising employees in 15 plants spread over hundreds of miles of territory would be, in practical effect, to deny them the right to col- lective bargaining and the "fullest freedom in exercising the rights guaranteed by this Act." Labor organization is often a process of growth which proceeds from small to large. Not many employee groups can simultaneously mount an organizing campaign among employees at 15 plants located in 5 different States. Certainly plant guards, whose organization must be pursued under certain limitations imposed by the amended statute, are not among those who can readily do so. It is true that a unit of guards at all of the Employer's plants would also be appropriate. The history of bargaining for other employees and the evidence of centralization indicate the potential propriety of such a unit. But bargaining history for one group of organized employees, although persuasive, should not invariably control the bargaining pattern for every other group of unorganized employees. Where the nature of their work is sufficiently different, the bargaining 'National Labor Relations Board, Sixteenth Annual Report (1951), 97-08 ; Waldensian Hosiery Mills, Inc., 83 NLRB 742. 5 Mid-States Steel and Wire Company, 94 NLRB 199 ; Silverwood's, 92 NLRB 1114. 104 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD history or lack thereof of the very group of employees concerned should not, we believe, be ignored by giving binding effect to the pat- tern established by another group not directly involved. Considering the lack of bargaining history for guards, their special attributes, the wide geographic dispersal of the Employer's plants, the degree of local control, and the nature of their present organization, we believe that a unit of guards at one of the Employer's plants and related warehouses would also be appropriate. The Petitioner here has asked for a unit of Lawrenceburg plant and Milan warehouse guards, but is also willing to include the guards at the Kings Mills and Middletown warehouses. As these warehouses bear the same relation to the Lawrenceburg plant as that at Milan, we believe that the guards at all three warehouses should be included in the unit. Accordingly, we find that all guards at the Employer's Lawrence- burg, Indiana, plant, and its Milan, Indiana, and Kings Mills and Middletown, Ohio, warehouses, excluding supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for purposes of collective bar- gaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this volume.] MEMBER MURDOCK, dissenting : I am convinced that the Board's decision in the earlier Seagram cases was correct. The majority, in reversing that decision, has, in my opinion , discarded a salutary principle of representation case law that has been instrumental in furthering industrial harmony . Accord- ingly, I would, for reasons detailed in the former decision , dismiss the petition filed herein on the ground that the unit sought by the Peti- tioner is inappropriate. 6 Joseph E. Seagram 4 Sons, Inc., 83 NLRB 167. DnaLYTE COMPANY OF AMERICA, INC. and METAL POLISHERS, BUFFERS, PLATERS AND HELPERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL 24, AFL, PETITIONER. Case No. 13-RC-285&. October 27, 1952 Decision and Order Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Helene Zogg, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prej- udicial error and are hereby affirmed. 101 NLRB No. 35.