St. Regis Paper Co.

550 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD which the substantial claims rule was devised. We therefore deny the Intervenor's motion to dismiss the petition. 4. The following employees of the Employer constitute a unit appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining within Section 0 (b) of the Act:2 All production and maintenance employees at the Em- ployer's Jersey City, New Jersey, plant, but excluding office clerical employees, professional employees, guards, and all supervisors within the meaning of the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] 2 The unit described is in accordance with the agreement of the parties. s It appears from the meager record in this case, that the former business agent of the Intervenor organized the Petitioner local and is now the president of the latter. The details are not in the record. The evidence shows that after the formation of Petitioner local, the Intervenor obtained an injunction in the Supreme Court of New York enjoining the Petitioner local inter alia from using the numerical designation "601," the same number as the Intervenor local . The Intervenor moved the Board to dismiss the petition on the ground that the use of this number by the Petitioner in the instant proceeding was a violation of the decree. The Board's customary practice is to permit a union's name to appear on the ballot as specified by it where, in the Board's opinion, the designation will not create confusion in the minds of the voters as to the Identity of the participants in the election (Intern. tionai Harvester Company, East Moline Works, 108 NLRB 600 ; Sonotone Corporation, 90 NLRB 1236, 1239 ), and to change the name appearing on the ballot where such confu- sion may result. ( See Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 102 NLRB 800, 802.) Although it does not appear likely that confusion will result in this case , as the Petitioner's name is entirely different from that of the Intervenor, we shall, in deference to the decree of the State supreme court, remove the designation "No. 601" from the name of the Petitioner. In view of our action taken herein, we deny the Intervenor's motion to dismiss the petition on the asserted ground. St. Regis Paper Company and International Brotherhood of Pulp, Sulphite & Paper Mill Workers, AFL-CIO; Pineland Local 447, International ; Brotherhood of Pulp, Sulphite & Paper Mill Workers, AFL-CIO; Escambia Local 737, Inter- national Brotherhood of Pulp, Sulphite & Paper. Mill Work- ers, AFL-CIO ; Pineland Local 617, International Brotherhood of Pulp, Sulphite & Paper Mill Workers, AFL-CIO; United Papermakers & Paperworkers , AFL-CIO; Gulf Local 561, United Papermakers & Paperworkers, AFL-CIO; Local 444, United Papermakers & Paperworkers, AFL-CIO; Interna- tional Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO; and Cantonment Local 1937, International Brotherhood of Elec- trical Workers, AFL-CIO, Joint Petitioners. Case No. 15-RC- 2104. August 9,1960 AMENDED DECISION AND ORDER On March 21,1960, the Board issued its Decision and Direction of Election 1 in the above-entitled proceding in which it found wood 1126 NLRB 1157. 128 NLRB No. 70. ST. REGIS PAPER COMPANY 551 scalers employed by the Employer at its Cantonment, Florida, plant to be plant clericals and directed a self-determination election to afford such employees an opportunity to indicate whether or not they desire to be included in the existing production and maintenance unit currently represented by the Joint Petitioners. Thereafter, on March 30, 1960, the Employer filed a motion for clarification of decision, contending that the wood scalers are guards and watchmen and as such, under the provisions of Section 9 (b) (3) of the Act, cannot be included in the existing production and maintenance unit. The Employer requested a hearing "for the limited purpose of permitting the presentation of evidence in order to clarify the status of these employees insofar as their guards and watchmen duties are con- cerned." The motion was opposed by the Joint Petitioners. On April 13, 1960, the Board, after due deliberation, ordered the record herein reopened, directed that a further hearing be held for the limited purpose set forth above, and remanded the case to the Regional Director for the Fifteenth Region. Thereafter, a hearing was held before Fallon W. Bentz, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rul- ings 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 Rodgers and Bean.] Upon the entire record 2 in this case, the Board finds: 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 2. The Joint Petitioners named above are labor organizations which claim to represent certain employees of the Employer. 3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the repre- sentation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Sec- tion 9(c) (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, for the following reasons: The Employer has two recognized entrances and exits to its plant, generally called the north and south gates, which are approximately three-tenths of a mile apart. The north gate is the main entrance and exit for all employees and visitors to the plant. This gate has guard coverage for 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The guards are uniformed and are deputized police officers with authority to make arrests on and off company property. The south gate is open approximately 16 hours a day, 5 days a week, and is used exclusively for trucks hauling wood into the plant. The only persons stationed at the south gate are the wood scalers. The south gate is kept locked by the wood scalers whenever the com- 2 On June 17, 1960, the Board , on due notice, granted a mbtion by the Employer to correct the transcript of the remanded proceeding. 552 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD pany is not receiving wood. - When the scaler on. the evening shift. ,completes his shift, he procures the gate, key and locks the gate which remains locked till the next day. The record shows that the wood scalers while on duty at the south gate are responsible for all ingress to and egress from the plant through that gate. They have been instructed to, and do keep all unauthorized persons out, directing them to the main entrance. They also prevent persons, including employees, from leaving, through the south gate. They prevent wood trucks with more than one person .aboard from entering or leaving. The scalers are not authorized to use force or violence in the discharge of the above duties. In the event a person refuses to comply with their orders or an unauthorized person enters unnoticed, the scaler calls one of the deputized guards. There are six wood scalers at the plant. They work rotating shifts between the south gate and a railroad entrance which the record shows is unguarded. Thus, all wood scalers spend a portion of their time at the south gate. It is clear from the record that the wood scalers are solely respon- sible for policing the south gate, which is otherwise unguarded. We therefore find that the wood scalers are guards,3 who, pursuant to the provisions of Section 9 (b) (3), may not be included in the existing production and maintenance unit 4 Therefore, we shall dismiss the petition. [The Board vacated and set aside the previous Decision and Direc- tion of Election and dismissed the instant petition.] 3 Rayonier, Incorporated , Case No. 10-RC-4493, ( unpublished ) ; Augusta Chemical Co., 124 NLRB 1021; W.W. Chambers Co., Inc., 124 NLRB 984; Aeroguild, Inc., 119 NLRB 329 ; Tennessee Knitting Hills, 109 NLRB 628. 4 The Joint Petitioners' request that they be allowed to represent the wood scalers in a residual unit is denied. See Section 9(b) (3) of the Act. Cam-Brese Corp. d/b/a Owl Drug Company and Retail Clerks Union, Local 1428. Case No. 21-CA-3802. August 10, 1960 DECISION AND ORDER On March 29,1960, Trial Examiner Howard Myers 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 take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Inter- mediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act; the Board has delegated its powers in connection with 128 NLRB No. 62.