Paul M. O'Neill International Detective Agency, Inc.

760 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD are supervisors within the meaning of the Act and I would, of course, grant the Petitioner's request for Board reconsideration of- this- issue. As the floor directors are merely trainees who 'teceive' 'instructions with respect to their duties from the, assistant directors, a fortiori, I would not find them to be supervisors. However, even if I accepted the view of my majority colleagues as to the supervisory status of the assistant directors, an examination of the nature of the duties of the floor directors and a consideration of their rather remote possibilities of becoming directors prevents me from agreeing with my colleagues that "floor directors have the inter- est of supervisors and stand in the position of such under the Act." Thus, the record clearly discloses that the floor directors perform two principal functions both of which are strictly routine and nondiscre- tionary in character. First, they sweep the studio floor and physically move the sets, furniture, and property of a particular television show to their proper places on the floor. In many television studios such work is done by porters. Secondly, they also cue performers while a show is on the air, which merely consists of relaying the specific in- structions of the directors to the performers. Moreover, excluding the 8 assistant directors and floor directors presently employed, there have been 27 employees who have occupied these positions and only 6 of them have been retained by the Em- ployer (5 as directors and 1 as program director). In my opinion, where, as here, an employee has about a 1 in 5 chance that he may be- come a supervisor, it can hardly be said that his interests are allied with management. It has been pointed out that an employee's pros- pects for promotion are among the conditions of employment which the Act is designed to protect 4 and I am not apprised of any persua-. sive reason for denying him present protection merely because he could conceivably advance to a position in which he would not be en- titled to such protection s In view of the foregoing, I would at, least grant the Petitioner's alternative request for a unit of floor directors and would direct an election therein. 4 N. L. R. B; v. Bell Aircraft Corporation, 206 F. 2d 235 , 237 (C. A. 2). 6 See The Peal Manufacturing Company, 80 NLRB 827, 829. Paul M. O'Neill International Detective Agency, Inc.' and New Jersey Guards' Union, Local 100, International Guards Union of America, Petitioner. Case No. 2-RC-7785. March 12, 1956 DECISION AND ORDER Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a. hearing was held before I. L. Broadwin, hearing x The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing. 115 NLRB No. 119. PAUL M. O'NEILL INTERNATIONAL DETECTIVE AGENCY, INC. 761 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 employees 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 engaged principally in the business of supplying plant protection and guard services to plants in and near Newark, New Jersey. It supplies approximately 170 guards to some 30 plants ; 8 of these plants are located in Newark; 21 are within a 15-mile radius of Newark; and 1 is 37 miles from Newark. The Petitioner seeks a unit limited to the guards employed by the Employer at the plants of Anheuser-Busch Brewing and Krueger Brewing Company, both located in Newark. The Employer contends .the scope of the unit should include all the guards it employs in the State of New Jersey. The hourly wage rate for guards at the different locations varies. The rate at a particular plant is based upon the remuneration received by the Employer for furnishing guard service. At 17 locations, in- cluding Anheuser-Busch and Krueger, the guards receive $1.15 per hour; at 11 locations they receive $1.10 per hour; at 1 location they receive $1 per hour; and at another location they receive $1.25 per hour. About 70 percent of the guards receive $1.15 per hour. The guards at all the locations, except 1, work 8-hour shifts, 5 days a week. The Employer has a policy of transfering guards from one location to another to prevent them from becoming too familiar with plant employees. In addition, in cases of sickness, or if a client requires more protection, guards are often-, called upon to fill in at locations other than the one to which they are assigned. During the period from January to December 1955, the number of transfers per month varied from 22 to 55. When a guard is transfered he receives the established hourly rate at the location to which he is transferred. Since June 1954, all the 'Employer's guards hired for work in the State of New Jersey have been interviewed and hired through the Employer's Newark office.' All the guards, regardless of the location to which they, are assigned, receive the same benefits, wear the. same kind' of uniform, and are under the direction of the same supervisors. The Employer refused to stipulate that the Petitioner is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act As the record shows thiit the Petitioner exists for the purpose of-representing -its members in collective bargaining, we find it to be a labor organization within the meaning of the Act. 762 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD These supervisors, a head supervisor, the night supervisor and the personnel director, make regular daily visits to the various locations, .including Anheuser-Busch and Krueger. Since 1952 the Employer has had bargaining agreements with Spe- cial Police Guards Union, Local 23318, AFL, covering all the guards employed by the Employer in the State of New Jersey.3 Although the contracts contained dues checkoff provisions applicable to all guards, by special arrangement between the Employer and Local 23318 only the guards at three locations, i. e., Anheuser-Busch Brewing, Krueger Brewing Company, and Givaudan Corporation, have in fact been sub- ject to checkoff of dues. In support of its position, the Petitioner cites this special arrangement on establishing the appropriateness of a bar- gaining unit consisting of Anheuser-Busch and Krueger. We do not agree. In view of the bargaining history on a Statewide basis, the extent of interchange of guards between plants, the' relative uniformity of employment conditions, the centralization of personnel handling, and the common supervision, we find in accord with the Employer's con- tention, that all the Employer's guards in the State of New Jersey constitute the appropriate unit. As the Petitioner has not presented a sufficient showing of interest in such a unit, we shall dismiss the petition. [The Board dismissed the petition.] Special Police Guards 'Union, Local 23318, AFL, did not intervene . It was served with notice of hearing. The Zeller Corporation and International Union, United Auto- mobile, Aircraft & Agricultural Implement Workers of Amer- ica, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 8-RC-92516. March 12i 1956 DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF RESULTS OF ELECTION On August 18, 1955, pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election, an election by secret ballot was conducted, under the direction of the Regional Director for the Eighth Region. Upon conclusion of the election, a tally of ballots was furnished the parties in accordance with the Rules and Regulations of the Board. The tally shows that of about 369 eligible voters, 359 cast ballots of which 258 ,were against, and.. 85 for the Petitioner, 14 voted challenged ballots and 2 ballots were void. The challenged ballots are insufficient in number to affect the results of the election. On August 23, 1955, the Petitioner filed timely objections to conduct affecting the election. In accordance with Board Rules and Regula- 115 NLRB No. 111.