Northwest Protective Service, Inc.

,840 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the Union has been motivated solely by a desire to compel discontinuance of the merit rating system; the right to the information is clear, and the Union's alleged purpose does not lessen that right, whatever might be said of its tactical approach. III. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Company, set forth in section 11, above, occurring in connec- tion with the operations described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. IV. THE REMEDY Having found that the Company has engaged in and is engaging in certain unfair labor practices affecting commerce, I shall recommend that it cease and desist there- from and take certain affirmative action in order to effectuate the policies of the Act. It has been found that by refusing to make available to the Union the Company's merit rating system records with respect to employees in the collective-bargaining unit, the Company refused to bargain collectively with the Union thereby interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees. I shall therefore recommend that the Company cease and desist therefrom and from any like or related conduct, and also, upon request, bargain collectively with the Union with respect to wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment, and embody in a signed contract any understanding reached. Upon the basis of the above findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Local Lodge 1314, International Association of Machinists, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 2. All of the Company's regular employees who are production workers, including maintenance workers, helpers, and laborers, but excluding laborers permanently as- signed to foundry work, foundry workers, storeroom personnel, guards, working foremen, office and clerical employees, technical employees, and supervisory em- ployees with authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline or effectively recom- mend such action constitute a unit appropriate for the purpose of collective bargain- ing within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act. 3. The Union was on August 13, 1945, and at all times since has been the exclu- sive representative within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act, of all employees in the aforesaid unit for the purpose of collective bargaining. 4. By refusing on October 31, 1958, to make available to the Union the Com- pany's merit rating system records with respect to employees in the aforesaid unit, thereby refusing to bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive representa- tive of the employees in the appropriate unit, the Company has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a) (5) of the Act. 5. By such refusal to bargain, thereby interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Company has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act. 6. The aforesaid labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. [Recommendations omitted from publication.] Northwest Protective Service , Inc. and International Union United Plant Workers of America , Amalgamated Local 5, Petitioner. Case No. 19-RC-2376. September 3, 1959 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 Donald D. McFeely, hearing 124 NLRB No. 108. NORTHWEST PROTECTIVE SERVICE, INC. 841 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 1 finds : 1. Northwest Protective Service, Inc., is engaged in the business of rendering guard services to industrial organizations and to enterprises engaged in the operation of ships and docks. During the 12 months preceding the hearing, the Employer furnished guard services valued in excess of $50,000 to enterprises which satisfy the Board's jurisdic- tional standards. Accordingly, the Board finds that the Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act and that it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.2 2. The labor organization involved herein claims to represent cer- tain employees of the Employer. 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa- tion of certain employees of the Employer within the meaning of Sec- tion 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The Petitioner seeks to represent a unit of all the Employer's guard employees in the Puget Sound area. The Employer contends that only separate units of plant protection employees and waterfront employees are appropriate. The Employer renders guard services both to manufacturing enter- prises and to enterprises engaged in the operation of ships and docks. It furnishes such services to manufacturing enterprises by contract; its waterfront operations are on a tariff basis. Applicants for em- ployment are hired at the Employer's central office in Seattle, Wash- ington ; all personnel action is handled through this office. Employees hired as plant guards are trained by the Employer for a particular plant; plant guards work regularly scheduled shifts at the same plant each day. Waterfront guards are also trained, but their work is on a dispatch basis, and they often work at different locations from day to day. The essential duties of both plant and waterfront guards are,. however, substantially the same. Plant guards are supervised by General Manager Anthony E. Mandery and his assistant, Mr. Ander- son; waterfront guards are supervised by Frank Scimeca, the Em- ployer's field supervisor. The average rate of pay for plant guards is. about $1.35 to $1.40 per hour; waterfront guards earn $1.40 to $1.50 per hour. On occasion, waterfront guards have been transferred to plant guard jobs, and there is evidence that plant guards have been shifted to waterfront duties. From about 1945 to 1955, the Employer had a contract with an A.F.L. union covering only the waterfront guards. In 1955, the Em- 1 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 Rodgers and Jenkins]. 2 Siernons Mailing Service, 122 NLRB 81. 842 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ployer executed a contract,' which also covered only the waterfront guards, with Security Police and Guard Association, Independent Council No. 1, but subsequently this organization was voluntarily dis- solved by its membership. None of the employees sought by the Peti- tioner is presently represented. In view of the centralization of personnel handling, the similarity of duties, the extent of interchange, and the fact that no union seeks to represent a smaller unit, we find that the bargaining history is not controlling and that the overall unit sought by the Petitioner is appropriate.' Accordingly, we find that all of the Employer's guard employees, including regular part-time guards, in the Puget Sound, Washington, area, including all plant protection employees and all employees per- forming ship, dock, and cargo policing on docks and ships, but exclud- ing office clerical employees, professional employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act' constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] 3 The Employer has moved to reopen the record to introduce further evidence to contra- dict the testimony of certain employee witnesses. These witnesses had testified to the effect that this contract was forced upon the employees and that the Employer dominated Security Police and Guard Association, Independent Council No. 1. We find that the evidence sought to be introduced, as well as the testimony already adduced, is im- material to the issues in this case, as it relates only to alleged unfair labor practices. It is established Board policy not to permit the litigation of alleged unfair labor practices in a representation proceeding. Cyclone Sales, Inc., 115 NLRB 431. The Employer's motion to reopen the record is hereby denied. 4 See Paul M. O'Neill International Detective Agency, Inc., 115 NLRB 760. 5 The Employer employs one sergeant, who is assigned to the -day shift at the Todd 'Shipyards Corporation Repair Yard. In addition to performing routine guard duties and acting as liaison between Todd and the Employer, the sergeant examines the log sheets to determine whether they have been properly filled out. He also makes sure that the discs in the clocks have been changed every 24 hours, as required. He reports to the Employer's office any errors of rounds or omissions of work, and calls rules to the atten- tion of any guard employee who violates them. He does not assign work to the guards under him and die has no authority to hire, discharge, or effectively recommend such action. Any recommendations he may make are independently investigated and acted upon by the Employer. Under these circumstances, we find that the sergeant is not a supervisor ; accordingly, we include him in the unit. Local 776, IATSE (Film Editors) and Henry A. Carlson and Cascade Pictures of California, Inc., Party to the Contract. Case No. 92.1-CB-1199. September 4, 1959 DECISION AND ORDER On May 12, 1959, Trial Examiner David F. Doyle issued his Inter- mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and 124 NLRB No. 105.