A. S. Campbell Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 25, 1946

71 N.L.R.B. 753 (N.L.R.B. 1946)

In the Matter of A. S. CAMPBELL COMPANY, INc., EMPLOYER and
UNITED ELECTRICAL, RADIO & MACHINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO,
PETITIONER
Case No. 1-R-3134.-Decided November 25, 1946
M11r. Edmund P. Maloney, of Boston , Mass ., for the Employer.
Mr. Arthur R. Hannigan , of Boston , Mass. , for the Petitioner.
Mr. Conrad A. Wickham, Jr., of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed. hearing in this case was held at Boston,
Massachusetts, on August 27, 1946, before Thomas H. Ramsey, hear-
ing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in the case , the National Labor Relations
Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
A. S. Campbell Company , Inc.. a Massachusetts corporation , is pri-
marily engaged at its plant in East Boston , Massachusetts, in the
manufacture of automobile bumpers and guards , and plastic drain
pipes for refrigerators, and in the assembly of farm trailers. During
the year 1945 , it purchased for use in . its operations materials valued in
excess of $500,000 , of which 90 percent represented shipments from
points outside the Commonwealth of Massachusetts . During the same
period, the Employer manufactured products valued in excess of
$2,000,000, of which 85 percent represented shipments to points outside
the Commonwealth.
The Employer admits and we find that it is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Petitioner is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress
of Industrial Organizations , claiming to represent employees of the
Employer.
71NL11B,No128
753
754 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD '
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Employer refuses to recognize the Petitioner as the exclusive
bargaining representative of employees of the Employer until the
Petitioner has been certified by the Board in an appropriate unit.
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning
the representation of employees of the Employer, within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
Iv. T11E APPROPRIATE UNIT
Petitioner, which presently represents the Employer's production
and maintenance employees,' seeks a unit of the Employer's plant
guards at its plant in East Boston, Massachusetts, including the night
guard, but excluding the gardener and the chief guard. The Em-
ployer contends that the unit is inappropriate on the grounds that
(1) the guards themselves are not engaged in interstate commerce and
are therefore not entitled to the benefits of the Act, and (2) they-are
special policemen of the City of Boston, and, as such, may not be
represented by the same union that represents the Employer's produc-
tion and maintenance employees. If overruled in these respects, the
Employer agrees generally with Petitioner concerning the composi-
tion of the unit except that it would also include the chief guard.
The guards in issue perform the customary duties of plant-protec-
tion personnel, including such monitorial functions as checking to see
that employees moving in and out of the plant punch their time cards,
inspecting packages and employee passes, and investigating infrac-
tions of the company rules. They are uniformed and carry firearms,
and by virtue of their status as special policemen on the Boston Police
Force, they have the authority to arrest within the confines of the
Employer's plant. In the event of industrial unrest or other emer-
gency their oath as special policemen requires them to enforce munic-
ipal and State laws. The Employer, however, pays them and exer-
cises complete control over their duties and employment status.
We find no merit in the Employer's first contention that its guards
should be denied the benefits of the Act allegedly because they are
not engaged in interstate commerce. It is clear that the Employer
itself is engaged in such colnnmerce, and it is well established that a
specific determination that the duties of particular employees sought
to be represented affect interstate commerce is not a prerequisite to
assertion of jurisdiction by the Board.2 Nor do we find merit in the
1 As the result of an election held on September 18, 1941, under the auspices of the State
hoard of Conciliation of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts , Petitioner was recognized
by the Employer as the exclusi ve barganung iepresentative for its production and main-
tenance employees
2 Matter of City/ National Bank and 71 ) net Company . 50 N L R B 516. citing Matter of
Yvi qinia Electric cf Powei Company v N L R B ., 314 U S 469
A. S. CAMPBELL COMPANY, INC. 755
Employer's second contention that its guards may not, as special
policemen of the City of Boston, be represented by the same union
which represents its production and maintenance employees. Re-
cently, in the Illonsa'nto Chemical Company case,' the majority of
the Board reaffirmed prior holdings ¢ that the benefits of the Act
should not be denied to guards where they seek to be represented
for collective bargaining purposes by the same labor organization
which represents employees over whom their monitorial function is
exercised. We perceive no reason for reaching a different result here
because the guards in question have also been commissioned as special
policemen on the Boston police force.5 Accordingly, we are persuaded
that the Employer's plant guards may function together for collective
bargaining purposes.
As indicated above, the parties are in dispute with respect to the
chief guard; Petitioner would exclude him as supervisory, while the
Employer would include him. This employee originally performed
duties similar to the other guards. Recently, however, he has been
placed in charge of the Employer's guard force, in which capacity he
relays orders from management to the other guards, acts as a roving
guard to "spot check" the other guards, and insures that fire and safety
regulations are observed by all. He also makes confidential investi-
gations of the Employer's employees regarding breaches of its rules,
thefts and absenteeism, as a supplemental check against the routine
reports filed by the other guards concerning such incidents. In addi-
tion he is required to stand a regular guard shift in the absence of one
of the regular guards. He receives approximately 12 percent more in
wages than the othei guards. Although he has no authority to hire
or discharge, he is generally responsible for the actions of the guard
force and bears the responsibility for its general discipline.
Under the foregoing circunnstances, we are persuaded that this em-
ployee is a supervisor within our customary meaning of the term. We
shall, therefore, exclude him from the unit.
We find that all guards employed by the Employer at its plant in
East Boston, Massachusetts, including the night guard, but excluding
the gardener, the chief guard, and all other supervisory employees with
authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect
changes in the status of employees, or effectively recommend such ac-
tion, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
3 71 N L R B 11
4 Matter of Seeger-Sunbeam Con poration, Evansville Division, 69 N L R B 985 , Matter
of Dravo Corporation, 52 N L R B 322
5 The Employer cites N. L R B v Jones cC Laughlin Steel Corporation, 154 F. ( 2d) 932
(C C A 6). in support of its position However, the Board does not acquiesce in that
decision, and has filed a petition for certioraii in the Supreme Court
756 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the
purposes of collective bargaining with A. S. Campbell Company, Inc.,
East Boston, Massachusetts, an election by secret ballot shall be con-
ducted as early as possible, but not later than thirty (30) days from
the date of this Direction, under the direction and supervision of the
Regional Director for the First Region, acting in this matter as agent
for the National Labor Relations Board, and subject to Sections 203.55
and 203.56, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regula-
tions-Series 4, among the employees in the unit found appropriate in
Section IV, above, who were employed during the pay-roll period im-
mediately preceding the date of this Direction, including employees
who did not work during said pay-roll period because they were ill or
on vacation or temporarily laid off, and including employees in the
armed forces of the United States who present themselves in person at
the polls, but excluding those employees who have since quit or been
discharged for cause and have not been rehired or reinstated prior to
the date of the election, to determine whether or not they desire to be
represented by United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of Amer-
ica, C. I. 0., for the purposes of collective bargaining.
MR. JAMES J. REYNOLDS, JR., d i ssenting :
For the reasons stated in my dissenting opinion in the Monsanto
Chemical Company case. which I find equally applicable here, I would
dismiss the present petition.
671N.L R B. 11.