Ingersoll-Rand Co.

INGERSOLL-RAND COMPANY 601 Ingersoll-Rand Company 1 and Independent Union of Plant Pro- tection Employees in the Electrical and Machine Industry, Pe- titioner. Case No. 3-RC-1899. November 25, 1957 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 John M. Shea, Jr., hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Leedom and Members Murdock and Rodgers]. 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 Employer refused to stipulate at the hearing that the Peti- tioner is a labor organization. However, the record shows, and we find, that the Petitioner exists for the purpose of dealing with employers concerning wages, hours, and conditions of work, and that it is therefore a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. The Petitioner seeks to represent a unit of guards at the Employer's plant at Painted Post, New York. The Employer contends that the petition should be dismissed on the ground that the Petitioner is affiliated directly or indirectly with Local No. 313, IUE, AFL-CIO, which admits to membership employees of the Employer other than guards, and the Petitioner is, therefore, under Section 9 (b) (3) of the Act ineligible to be certified as the representative of the Employ- er's guards. The record shows that the Employer has bargained with Local 313 since 1950 as the representative of the Employer's production and maintenance employees, excluding guards, inter alia. On July 15, 1957, at the request of certain of the guards, Parks, president of Local 313, sent the following letter to the Employer : This is to notify you that a majority of your Guard Force have joined together and formed the Painted Post Guards Local Union, Independent for the purpose of bargaining on wages, rates of pay, hours of employment and other working conditions as de- fined in the Labor-Management Relations Act, 1947. The Painted Post Guards Local Union, Independent has en- gaged me to represent them. Therefore, you may mail any corre- i The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing. 119 NLRB No. 75. 602 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD spondence to me at this address 225 Steuben Street, Painted Post, New York. We are ready to start negotiations on a contract at any time that it is convenient to you. Please notify me of the date on which you want to open these talks. A few days later, Parks asked the Employer's director of industrial relations about the Employer's reaction to the letter, and received a noncommittal reply. Thereafter, having been advised by his Inter- national not to intervene in the organization of the guards, Parks suggested to the guards that they affiliate with an independent guards' union. Ryan, president of Petitioner, testified, without contradiction, that he first heard about the instant plant in June 1957, from a member of one of Petitioner's locals in Syracuse, New York. He thereupon mailed a number of authorization cards to Cole, one of the guards at the instant plant, in care of Local 313's hall. Cole solicited signatures on the cards. There is no evidence that he was aided by any rep- resentative of Local 313. When the signed cards were returned, Ryan filed the instant petition, on August 9. Ryan first visited the instant plant on September 23-3 days before the hearing on the petition. He was met by Parks at the airport. Dur- ing the next 3 days, Ryan attended several meetings of the guards at Local 313's hall. While no guards' local has yet been chartered by the Petitioner at the instant plant, Ryan testified that he intends to charter a local, if the Petitioner is certified for the guards, and that any contract for the guards will be negotiated jointly by the interna- tional 2 and such local. While it is clear from the record that Ryan had frequent conversa- tions with Parks by telephone, the only evidence as to the subject mat- ter of their conversations is the testimony of Ryan that they related to information that the Petitioner needed before it could undertake the organization of the guards and that this was "normal procedure." The record shows also frequent visits by officers of Local 313 to the guards at their duty posts, beginning in May 1957. However, the purpose of such visits does not appear in the record. While it is undisputed that Parks acted for the guards in the first instance, in requesting recognition by the Employer, that he coun- seled them before the petition herein was filed, and that Local 313 donated the use of its hall to Ryan for his meetings with the guards, there is no evidence that any representatives of Local 313 have taken any active part in the organization of the guards, or that Local 313 or its parent has contributed any assistance to the guards other than a Ryan testified that, although Petitioner's headquarters are in Lynn, Massachusetts, it has a part-time representative in Syracuse, New York, who will service any guards' local at the instant plant. THE GREAT ATLANTIC & PACIFIC TEA COMPANY 603 that specified above. Ryan stated at the hearing that the Petitioner, if certified, would not use any IUE facilities or accept any assistance from it in servicing the instant guards' unit. Upon the entire record, we find that no affiliation as proscribed by the statute has been shown. The assistance to the Petitioner by Local 313 has been limited to the use of a meeting hall for several meetings between. Ryan and the guards, and permitting the hall to be used as a mailing address on one occasion.' Assistance of this sort is not, with- out more, indicative of "indirect affiliation" within the meaning of Section 9 (b) (3) of the Act.4 Accordingly, and in view of the as- surance of the Petitioner that it will accept no more aid from Local 313, we find that the Petitioner is a labor organization which does not admit to membership, and is not affiliated directly or indirectly with an organization which admits to membership, employees other than guards. 3. A 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. 4. The parties stipulated, and we find, that the following employees constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act : All guards employed by the Employer at its main plant and foundry at Painted Post, New York, excluding all other employees and all supervisors as defined in the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] 9 Such other assistance as was rendered by Parks and Local 313 to the guards occurred before the Petitioner undertook to organi ze the guards. 4 The Midvale Company, 114 NLRB 372; Federal Services, Inc., 115 NLRB 1729. The Magnavox Company, 97 NLRB 1111, and Mack Manufacturing Corporation, 107 NLRB 209, cited in the Employer's brief are distinguishable on their facts. Unlike the Mack case, there is no evidence in the case at bar that the guards were solicited or organized by representatives of a nonguard union . Nor is there any evidence here of such material assistance as was rendered in the Magnavox case. Moreover, in the latter case , the Board inferred from its acceptance in the past of assistance from a nonguard union that the petitioner would continue to depend upon the other union . Here, however, such an inference may not be drawn without ignoring the Petitioner's assurance that it will not accept outside aid. Should the Petitioner , however, accept such aid, the Board may, upon a proper showing, revoke any certification issued to Petitioner in this case . Mack Manu- facturing Corporation, supra. The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, Inc. and Retail Wholesale and Department Store Union , AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 10-RC-3909. November 25, 1957 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 Paul L. Harper, hear- 119 NLRB No. 74.