Louis F. Dow Co.

LOUIS F. DOW COMPANY 609 are to be tallied in the following manner: The votes for the union seeking the separate unit shall be counted among the valid votes cast, but neither for nor against the union seeking the more comprehensive unit; all other votes are to be accorded their face value, whether for representation by the union seeking the comprehensive unit, or for no union. The Regional Director conducting the election is instructed to issue a certification of representatives to the labor organization selected by a majority of the employees in the pooled group, which the Board in such circumstances finds to be a single unit appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining. [Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.] MEMBER MURDOCK took no part in the consideration of the above Supplemental Decision and Direction of Elections. ,Louis F. Dow COMPANY and BUILDING SERVIc E EMPLOYEES INTERNA- TIONAL, LOCAL 64, AFL, PETITIONER. Case No. 18-RC-399. Feb- ruary 14,1955 Decision and Order Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Alan Bruce, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from preju- dicial 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. No 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 for the following reasons : The Employer is a Minnesota corporation engaged in the manu- facture of good-will advertising products such as calendars, novelties, leather goods, and general printing. The Petitioner seeks a unit of four employees who perform janitor, watchmen, and maintenance duties under the supervision of a janitor foreman. Although the Em- ployer does not dispute the appropriateness of the unit, he challenges the authority of the Petitioner to represent three of these employees who he contends perform guard duties. One of the four employees petitioned for is a paper baler who uses a mechanical baler to bale waste paper. The Employer does not con- tend that he performs guard duties. However, there is some evidence 111 NLRB No. 101. 610 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD in the record that were one of the other janitors absent, he would prob- ably substitute for him, but as of the hearing date, the situation had not arisen. We find that the paper baler is not a guard.' The three janitor-watchmen perform janitorial duties as well as maintenance duties throughout the plant; someone is on duty at all times-24 hours per day, 7 days each week. Their duties include open- ing the doors to permit the entrance of employees. The Employer con- tends that the janitor-watchmen guard the entrances into the plant when the doors are open and introduced a schedule of hours which was posted in the plant showing periods that these employees were to remain at the doors. However, the janitor-watchmen testified at the hearing that within the last few months, their janitorial duties had increased and with the approval of their foreman, they no longer remained at the entrance after they opened the doors. Occasionally they inspect packages an employee may be carrying out as he leaves. Authorized packages carry a label of the foreman. When the plant is not in operation, the janitor-watchman makes a complete round of the building to make sure everything is all right as soon as he reports to work. Employees entering or leaving the plant when the doors are closed must ring a bell and await the watchman-janitor to open the door. No admission into the plant is permitted by the janitor-watch- man of unauthorized personnel. Although these employees are not armed, uniformed, or deputized, it is their duty to inform the Employer of the unauthorized removal of packages as well as the presence of any unauthorized person in the plant. In these circumstances, we find the janitor-watchmen are guards within the meaning of the Act.' Inasmuch as the Petitioner admits to membership employees other than guards, Section 9 (b) requires the dismissal of this petition in so far as it pertains to the employees herein found to be guards. As to the paper baler, the Board' has long found that one employee does not constitute an appropriate bargaining unit. Accordingly, we shall dismiss the petition herein. [The Board dismissed the petition.] 1 See Gen Pro, Inc., 110 NLRB 12. 2 See Walterboro Manufacturting Corporation, 106 NLRB 1383. PARSONS PUNCH CORPORATION and INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT & AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, UAW-CIO, PETITIONER. Case No. 7-RC-2423. Feb- ruary 14,1955 Decision and Direction On April 21, 1954, pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election, an election by secret ballot was conducted under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Seventh 111 NLRB No. 102.