Aluminum Co. of America

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 8, 1943

50 N.L.R.B. 233 (N.L.R.B. 1943)

In the Matter of :1LUMINUM COMPANY OF AMERICA and AMALGAMATED
PLANT PROTFCizoiv; LOCAL-114, UAW-CIO
Case No. R-.5380.-Decided June 81194p,
Beaumont, Smith & Harris, by Mr. Albert E. Meder, of Detroit,
Mich.; for the Company.
Maurice Sugar d; N. L. Smokier, by :4fr. N. L. Smokier, of De-
troit, Mich., for the Amalgamated.
Mr. Wallace E. Royster, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon an amended petition duly filed by Amalgamated Plant Pro-
tection Local 114, UAW-CIO, herein called the Amalgamated, al-
leging that a question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the
representation of employees of Aluminum Company of America, De-
troit, Michigan, herein called the Company, the National Labor Re-
lations Board provided for an appropriate hearing upon due notice
before Frank L. Danello, Trial Examiner. Said hearing was held
at Detroit, Michigan, on May 17, 1943. The Company and the
Amalgamated appeared, participated, and were afforded full oppor-
tunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to
introduce evidence bearing on, the issues. The Trial Examiner's rul-
ings made at the hearing are-,free from prejudicial error and are
.hereby affirmed. The Company has filed a brief which the Board
has considered.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY,
Aluminum Company 'of America, is a Pennsylvania corporation
owning and operating various plants throughout the United States.
This proceeding concerns only the employees of the Company at its
50 N. L, R B., No. 40.
233
234 IYE ,cISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR , RELATIONS BOARD
plant in Detroit , Michigan , where the Company is engaged in the
fabrication of aluminum castings and extrusions for the Federal
Government . - During 1942; the Detroit plant received raw materials
,of a value of approximately ' $600,000 from points outside Michigan
and, during the same - period , shipped finishedproducts having a value
of approximately $6,000,000 from the plant to points outside
Michigan.
For the purpose of this proceeding the Company concedes that it is
engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor
Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
' Amalgamated Plant Protection Local 114 , UAW-CIO, is a labor
organization affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations,
admitting to membership ` employees of the Company.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
.
On March 9, 1943, the Amalgamated, by letter to the Company,
requested, recognition as exclusive bargaining representative of the
employees within the claimed unit. The Company made no reply to
this request, but at the hearing refused to recognize the Amalgamated
as such representative.
A statement of the Regional Director introduced into evidence at
the hearing indicates that the Amalgamated represents a substantial
number of employees in the unit hereinafter found appropriate?
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning
representation of employees of the Company within the meaning of
Section 9 (c) and Section 2'(6) and (7)- of=the Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
In its petition the Amalgamated requests a unit of all plant-protec-
tion employees employed at the Company's Detroit plant, excluding
captains, lieutenants, and sergeants. While the Company for vari-
ous reasons contends the unit to be inappropriate, it agreed at the
hearing that, if a unit of plant-protection employees is found to be
appropriate, the above stated inclusions and exclusions are proper.
The plant-protection employees, or plant guards, of,the Company
have duties similar to those performed by' such employees in other
plants engaged in war production. In July 1942, the plant guards'
' The Regional Director stated that the Amalgamated submitted 33 authorization cards,
all of which bore apparently genuine original signatures ; 4 cards were undated and the
remainder were , dated from March 3 to 15, 1943; 32 of the cards bore the names of per-
„,sons whose,names, .appear on the Company 's,pay ;roll of April 20, 1943. The pay, roll lists
the names of 39 employees in the appropriate unit.
ALUMINUM COMPANY OF AMERICA -235
were deputized as auxiliary military police and are now under the
general control of the military authorities. As such auxiliaries they
are subject to military discipline and, in the event of a dereliction in
duty, to court martial proceedings. The Company asserts that the
guards are no longer subject to the same control as other employees
and that no one of them can be hired or discharged without the sub-
sequent approval of the military authorities. However, the Company
concedes that matters of salary or wages, of such guards are de-
termined by it without the necessity for such approval., The Com-
pany and another local, of the United Automobile, Aircraft & Agri-
cultural Implement Workers of America, C., I. 0., are parties to an
existing collective, bargaining contract which, covers the production
and maintenance employees at the plant. Clerical employees and
supervisors are expressly excluded from the unit covered by this
contract. ' The parties agree that plant guards are not covered by
this contract. The parties agree that plant guards are not1covered
by the existing contract, but the Company contends, and the Amal-
gamated denies, that the effect of the contract is to warrant; that
such employees will not be accepted as members of the same interna-
tional union in another unit. In a recent case,2 we passed upon a
similar question, and while we do not find the contention of the Com-
pany to be fairly inferable from the terms of the contract, involved
herein; we reiterate that any agreement between an employer and a
labor organization restricting employees in the selection of a bargain-
ing agent is plainly 'in derogation of the rights accorded employees
by the Act and cannot be given effect. The Company argues further
that the plant-protection employees here described are a part of
supervision and management and, under our holding in the Maryland
Drydock case,3 cannot constitute an appropriate unit. We disagree.
The employees with whom we are here concerned are not supervisors
in the sense in which this designation is traditionally used in industry.
No one of them may discipline or correct an employee for failure
properly to perform his work. Although in its brief the Company
states that the guards now have the, right to recommend discharges
and that their recommendations are given serious consideration, this
assertion is not supported by the testimony in the record. We do not
think that the reasons which impelled us to hold in the'Maryland'
Drydock case that supervisors cannot constitute an appropriate unit
are applicable here.
'Matter of Packard Motor Company and International Union, United Automobile, Air-
craft & Agricultural Implement Workers of America, Local No. 114 (UAW-CIO), 47 N. L.
R. B 932. 1
'Matter of Maryland Drydock Company and Local No. 31 of the Industrial Union of
Marine and Shipbuilding Workers of Amex ica , 49 N. L R B 733 -
236 • 17E-CISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
In accordance with our settled policy,' and in view of the agreement
of the parties, we find that, all plant-protection employees at the
Company's Detroit plant, excluding captains, lieutenants, and ser-
geants, constitute a unit appropriate for the, purposes of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
We shall direct that the question concerning representation which
has arisen be resolved by means of an election by secret ballot among
the employees in the appropriate unit who were employed during the
pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of the Direction of
Election herein, subject to the limitations and additions set forth in
the Direction.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National
Labor Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, and pursuant to Article III, Section 9, of National Labor
Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 2, as amended, it is
hereby
DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation to ascertain representa-
tives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Aluminum Com-
pany,of America, Detroit, Michigan, an election by secret ballot shall
be conducted as early as possible, but not later than thirty (30) clays
from the date of this Direction, under the direction and supervision
of the Regional Director for the Seventh Region, acting in this matter
as agent for the National Labor Relations Board, and subject to
Article III, Section 10, of said Rules and Regulations, among the
employees in the unit found appropriate in Section IV, above, who
were employed- during the pay-roll period immediately 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 tempo-
rarily laid off, and including employees in the armed forces of the
United States who present themselves in person at the polls, but ex-
eluding any who have since quit or been discharged for' cause, to
determine whether or not they desire to be represented by Amalgam-
ated Plant Protection Local 114, UAW-CIO, for the purposes of
collective bargaining.
MR. GER4RD D. REILLY took no part in the consideration of the
above Decision and Direction of Election.
4 See Matter of Chrysler Corporation, Highland Park Plant and Local 114, United Auto-
mobile, Aircraft & Agricultural Implement Workers of America, affiliated with the C. I. O,
44 N. L. R B. 881.