American District Telegraph Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 28, 1960

128 N.L.R.B. 345 (N.L.R.B. 1960)

AMERICAN DISTRICT TELEGRAPH COMPANY 345
In view of the foregoing, we find that all full-time and regular
part-time meat department employees at the Employer's Augusta,
Georgia, stores, excluding all other employees, office clerical employees,
professional employees, guards, meat market managers, and other
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.]
American District Telegraph Company and International Union
of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, Peti-
tioner. Case No. 1-RC-5916. July 28, 1960
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 Norman D. Schwartz,
hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings 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 Jenkins].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain
employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section
9(c) (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Petitioner seeks a single unit of plant department employ-
ees of the Employer at its Somerville, Massachusetts, location, and
the employees of Bankers' Electric Protective Service, hereinafter
called Bankers. The Employer contends that the two companies are
separate corporate entities and should not be considered as a single
employer for unit purposes. The record shows that both companies
are Massachusetts corporations which, in turn, are wholly owned by
American District Telegraph Company, a New Jersey corporation.
They share common management and officers; they work out of the
same location, perform similar services, and utilize the employees of
both interchangeably. Under these, facts we -find that both corpo-
rations constitute a single employer within the meaning of Section
1 For reasons stated below the Employer's motion to dismiss is denied.
128 NLRB No. 42.
346 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
9 (b) of the Act, and that a single overall unit consisting of the
employees of both is appropriate 2
The Employer asserts that the employees sought by the Petitioner
are guards within the meaning of the Act and the Petitioner is barred
by Section 9(b) (3) from being certified as their bargaining repre-
sentative. The Employer's business and general method of operation
are substantially the same as that described in A.D.T. Company, 112
NLRB 80, which involved a sister subsidiary. However, the record
herein discloses significant differences in the operation of the plant
department in question. The employees sought herein are primarily
concerned with the installation and maintenance of the various elec-
trical devices provided by the Employer to its customers for their
protection from theft, unlawful entry, fire, and equipment deficiency
or failure. Plant employees, unlike the guards, receive no guard
training, are not armed or uniformed, are not subject to call when
their shift ends, and work under different supervision than the guards.
Although the Employer asserts that they may be, and are, in fact,
used to perform the duties of operating department employees, who
are admittedly guards within the meaning of the Act, the record does
not support this contention. As a matter of fact, a plant department
employee is dispatched alone only in a situation where it is already
known that the cause of the alarm is some malfunction of the alarm
device and in such instances the customer-subscriber, his representa-
tive, or a guard is on the scene when the plant employee arrives. The
record reveals only one instance where a plant department employee
remained on the scene after the departure of a guard and that was
for a period of 11 minutes until the power supply was restored.
The record alludes to a time when guard and repair duties were
performed by the same people, but this arrangement was discontinued
10 years ago. Under these facts it is evident that the Board's previous
decisions relating to sister subsidiaries of the Employer are not con-
trolling as the responsibilities and duties of the employees involved'
in this case are substantially different. Based on the facts presented
herein, we find that these employees are not guards within the
meaning of the Act.4
We therefore find the following employees of the Employer con-
stitute an appropriate unit for collective bargaining purposes within
the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act: All production and mainte-
nance employees, stock clerks, inspectors, installers, repairmen and
helpers, and the dispatcher in the plant department employed by
American District Telegraph Company and Bankers' Electric Pro-
tective Service at their 2 Union Square, Somerville, Massachusetts,
2 Triangle Tannsng Co ., 115 NLRB 271.
8 Cf A D T. Co., supra; A D.T. Company, Case No. 8-RC-2836, unpublished.
4 Gen Pro, Inc., 110 NLRB 12.
NEW ENGLAND PROCESSING UNIT 347
location,' excluding all operating department employees , office clerical
employees , construction supervisors , maintenance supervisors, fore-
men and assistant foremen, professional employees, supervisors, and
guards as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
6 Plant department employees who work out of other locations in the Boston , Massa-
chusetts , area are included within the unit.
Swift and Company d/b/a New England Processing Unit and
United Packinghouse Workers of America, Local 165, AFL-
CIO. Cases Nos. 1-CA-3101 and 1-CA-3102. July f8, 1960
DECISION AND ORDER
On April 6, 1960, Trial Examiner Thomas N. Kessel issued his
Intermediate 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 brief in support thereof.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Leedom and Members
Rodgers and Jenkins].
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the
case, and hereby adopts the Trial Examiner's findings, conclusions,
and recommendations.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10(c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended , the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent , Swift and Com-
pany d/b/a New England Processing Unit, Somerville , Massachusetts,
its officers, agents, successors , and assigns , shall :
1. Cease and desist from refusing to bargain collectively with
United Packinghouse Workers of America, Local 165, AFL-CIO, as
the exclusive representative of its employees in the appropriate units
with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment and other
terms and conditions of employment.
128 NLRB No. 46.