Aluminum Co. of America

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 10, 1945

63 N.L.R.B. 828 (N.L.R.B. 1945)

In the Matter of ALUMINUM COMPANY OF AMERICA and UNITED STEEL-
WORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL 316, C. I. O.
Case No. '-R-568.Decided September 10, 1945
Isseks d Reyman, by Mr. Arthur E. Reyman, of New York City,
and Mr. 0. V. Peterson, of Edgewater, N. J., for the Company.
Rothbard, Harris & Talisman, by Mr. Clarence Talisman, of New-
ark, N. J., and Mr. George Binsted, of Newark, N. J., for the C. I. O.
Mr. Donald H. Frank, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
`STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a petition duly filed by United Steelworkers of America,
Local 316, C. I. 0., herein called' the CIO, alleging that a question
affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation of em-
ployees of Aluminum Company of America, Edgewater, New Jer-
sey, herein called the Company, the National Labor Relations Board
provided for an appropriate hearing upon due notice before Jerome
I. Macht, Trial Examiner. The hearing was held at New York City,
on June 25, 1945. The Company and the CIO appeared and partici-
pated. All parties were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to
examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bear-
ing on the issues.
At the hearing and in its brief, the Company moved the dismissal
of the petition upon the grounds discussed in Section IV, infra. Rul-
ing on the motion was reserved for the Board. For the reasons stated
in Section IV, the motion is hereby denied. The Trial Examiner's
rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are
hereby affirmed. All parties were afforded an opportunity to file
briefs with the Board.' The Company's request for oral argument
is hereby denied.
1 The Company filed with the Board , and served on the CIO, on July 7 , 1945 , a brief con-
taining a request in the nature of a motion , to correct certain clerical errors in the record'.
Thereafter , the CIO was advised to file with the Board, by July 19, 1945, any objections
to the Company 's motion. No objections having been received, the record has been
corrected.
63 N. L. R B., No. 127.
828
ALUMINUM COMPANY OF AMERICA 829
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
with its principal office and place of business at Pittsburgh, Pennsyl-
vania. It operates plants in several States of the United States, in-
cluding the Edgewater, New Jersey, Works, the sole operation of
the Company involved in this proceeding. At the Edgewater Works,
the Company is engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribution
of aluminum sheet, press forgings, screw machine products, rivets,
and foil in aluminum alloys. At the time of the hearing, approxi-
mately 97 percent of the output of the Edgewater Works was pro-
duced for the United States Government and its allies. During the
fiscal year 1945, the Edgewater Works used in its manufacturing
processes raw materials valued in excess of $100,000, shipped to it from
points outside the State of New Jersey. During the same period, it
shipped 90 percent of its finished products, valued in excess of $100,000,
to points outside the State of New Jersey.
The Company admits that it is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, and we so find.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
United Steelworkers of America, Local 316, affiliated with the Con-
gress of Industrial Organizations, is a labor organization admitting
to membership employees of the Company.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Company has refused to grant recognition to the CIO as the
exclusive bargaining representative of the Company's plant-protec-
tion employees until the CIO has been certified by the Board in an
appropriate unit.
A statement of a Board agent, introduced into evidence at the
hearing, indicates that the CIO represents a substantial number of
employees in the unit hereinafter found appropriate.2
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning
the representation of employees of the Company, within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
2 The Trial Examiner reported that the CIO submitted 29 dues-ledger cares, 28 of which
bore the names of persons appearing on the Company ' s pay roll of May 5, 1945, which
contained the names of 43 employees in the appropriate unit; and that 27 of the cards were
dated in March , April, and May 1945.
:830 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The CIO seeks a unit of all the Company's plant-protection guards
at the Edgewater Works, including corporals, but excluding fire-pa-
trolmen, and sergeants and lieutenants, and all other supervisory em-
ployees. The Company agrees to the propriety of the inclusion and
the exclusion sought.
All of these employees, about 40 in number, are uniformed; all but
4 of them are deputized; and all but 2 are armed. In general, it is
their duty to protect the property and employees of the Company.
In carrying out this duty, the guards at the company gates inspect
all employees as they enter and leave the area, keep a list of all visitors
entering the area, and escort these visitors to the proper offices. They
examine all packages brought onto the premises, as well as keeping
records of all deliveries made to the Company, and checking the re-
moval of any company property from the plant. The guards who
make the rounds, on the look-out for all unusual or dangerous circum-
stances, punch the clocks, close windows and doors, and inspect the
premises for signs of sabotage and espionage. When they apprehend
a disorderly or intoxicated employee, or one who is outside the areas he
is authorized to visit, they report the offender to his foreman. They
are authorized to quell all disturbances. They are entrusted with
keys to managerial offices, but are not authorized to use those keys for
the purpose of examining company files. All guards receive, on occa-
sion, certain confidential reports from the management which do not
appear to be concerned with the Company's labor relations policies.
They have, over a period of years, received from time to time special
instructions aiding them in the protection of persons and property.
When anything unusual is observed, they make a secret report to their
lieutenant concerning it.
The Company's motion to dismiss the petition is based on the con-
tentions (1) that recognition of a collective bargaining agent for
plant-protection employees is contrary to the public interest; (2) that
the deputization of these employees makes them the employees of the
Borough of Edgewater and, as such, not within the purview of the
Act; 3 (3) that the managerial and confidential nature of their work
makes any unit for them inappropriate; and (4) that they cannot be
represented by the CIO since that organization at present represents
the Company's production and maintenance employees, over whom
$ The guards are hired , paid, and discharged by the Company , which also furnishes their
uniforms . They receive no compensation from the Borough The Resolution of the
Borough, authorizing the appointment of Special Policemen , recites that their powers and
duties shall be limited to the plants , structures , vehicles, and grounds of the companies,
and the streets immediately adjacent thereto.
ALUMINUM COMPANY OF AMERICA 831
the plant-protection force exercises some authority.' Each of these'
contentions has been considered in numerous previous cases which in-
volved plant-protection employees similarly situated and with similar
duties, and were found to be without merit.5 Moreover, these em-
ployees are performing the salve duties as they were performing at the
time of our previous decision concerning them in which we determined
that a separate unit of these employees was appropriate.6 It is clear
that a separate unit for these employees is appropriate, inasmuch as
they exercise monitorial authority.?
We find that all the Company's plant-protection employees at the
Edgewater Works, including corporals, but excluding fire patrol-
men, and sergeants and lieutenants, and all other supervisory em-
ployees with authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or
otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or effectively
recommend such action, 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 an election by secret ballot among the em-
ployees in the appropriate unit who were employed during the pay-
roll period immediately preceding the date of the Direction of Elec-
tion 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-
4 The Company points to the decision of the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for
the Sixth Circuit in N. L R B . v. Jones it Laughlin Steel Corporation , 146 F. ( 2d) 718
-(C. C. A 6),cert . granted , remanded for further consideration June 4, 1945, 65 S Ct
1413 We do not acquiesce in the doctrine enunciated in that decision , which has not yet
been passed upon by the Court of last resort.
Matter of National Lead Company , Titanium Division, 62 N L R B 107 , Matter of
Sealed Power Corporation, 61 N. L. R. B 1639 ; Matter of Lockheed Aircraft Corporation,
Lockheed Modification Center, 61 N. L R. B . 1336 ; Matter of Aluminum Company of Amer-
ica, 61 N. L. R . B. 1066 ; Matter of International Harvester Company, Milwaukee Works,
61 N L . R. B. 912 ; Matter of Bethlehem -Fairfield Shipyard, Inc, 61 N L . R B 901 , Matter
of Bethlehem Steel Company , 61 N L R. B. 892 ; Matter of The Babcock it Wilcox Com-
pany, 61 N. L R B 529 ; Matter of Rohm it Haas Company, 60 N L R B 554, Matter of
Budd Wheel Company, 52 N L R B . 666; Matter of Dravo Corporation, 52 N. L R B 322;
Matter of Chrysler Corporation , 44 N. L R B. 881 . See also Matter of Tampa Shipbuilding
Company, Incorporated, 62 N L It . B. 954.
9 Matter of Aluminum Company of America, 57 N. L R. B. 1216 . The single change which
has occurred in their status since that decision , a change which has not affected their
duties, was their demilitarization . They had been deputized prior to their militarization,
and were redeputized immediately after the demilitarization in order to allow them to con-
tinue to carry arms.
7 Matter of Standard Steel Spring Company, 62 N. L. It. B. 660; Matter of, ikeltey-Hayes
Wheel Company, 62 N. L . It. B. 421.
832 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tions Act, and pursuant to Article III, Section 9, of National Labor
Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 3, as amended, it
is hereby
DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation to ascertain representa-
tives for the purposes of the collective bargaining with Aluminum
Company of America, Edgewater, New Jersey, an election by secret
ballot shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later than thirty
(30) days from the date this Direction, under the direction and
supervision of the Regional Director for the Second Region, acting
in this matter as agent for the National Labor Relations Board,
and subject to Article III, Sections 10 and 11, of said Rules and
Regulations, among the employees in the unit found appropriate
in Section TV, above, who were employed during the pay-roll period
immediately preceding the date of this Direction, including em-
ployees who did not work during said pay-roll period because they
were ill or on vacation or temporarily laid off, and including em-
ployees in the armed forces of the United -States who present them-
selves in person at the polls, but excluding any 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 Steelworkers of America, Local
316, C. I. 0., for the purposes of collective bargaining.
CHAIRMAN HERZOG took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Direction of Election.