Burns Detective Agency

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 23, 1954

110 N.L.R.B. 995 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

BURNS DETECTIVE AGENCY 995
land, California, excluding watchmen-janitors and all office and cleri-
•cal employees.
All salaried office and clerical employees and production expediters
at the Employer's wire and cable department and industry control de-
partment plant, 1034 66th Avenue, Oakland, California, excluding all
engineers and draftsmen, cashier, paymaster and assistant paymaster,
factory methods, time-study, and rate setting personnel, confidential
payroll personnel, telephone and telegraph operators, and all secre-
taries and stenographers to supervisors or assistant superintendent or
•equivalent grade or above.
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.]
BURNS DETECTIVE AGENCY and INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED PLANT
GUARD WORKERS OF AMERICA, AND ITS LOCAL #506, PETITIONER.
Case No. 4-RC-2378. November 23,1954
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 William Draper Lewis, Jr.,
hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are
free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is a New York corporation with offices in various
States throughout the United States, and is engaged in furnishing
guard services to manufacturing plants. In the Philadelphia area
alone, where this proceeding arose , it has contracts with between 50
and 60 industrial plants . It was stipulated that on a nationwide basis
the Employer's services to employers which themselves produce and
ship outside the State goods valued in excess of $50,000, exceed
$1,000,000 in volume. Accordingly, the total volume of the Employer's
operations meets the Board's recently established indirect outflow test
for multistate enterprises.' We therefore find that the Employer is en-
gaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act and that it will
effectuate the purpose of the Act to assert jurisdiction in this case.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain em-
ployees 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.
'Jonesboro Grain Drying Cooperative, 110 NLRB 481, standard 5 (c) at p 484 of that
decision Member Murdock , who dissented in that case , and Member Peterson , who con-
curred in the result , deem themselves bound by the decision therein.
110 NLRB No. 160.
996 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
4. The Petitioner seeks to represent a unit of all employees of the
Employer engaged in furnishing plant guard services at the Rheem
Manufacturing Company, Burlington, New Jersey. These services
are rendered through the Employer's regional office in Philadelphia,,
Pennsylvania. The Employer contends that the only appropriate unit
is one including all guards in the Philadelphia area. At the Rheeni
plant the Employer furnishes about 15 guards plus supervisory per-
sonnel . There is no bargaining history.
It is the Employer's policy to hire as guards individuals living in
the vicinity where they will work. Applicants for such employment
are generally interviewed first at the plant by the officer in charge and
then sent to the regional office for final approval. A guard is hired to,
work at a specific plant; 2 there is no interchange among guards work-
ing at different plants under contract with the Employer. While
general work rules for guards are formulated at the regional office,,
the guards are under the immediate supervision of a captain who is
the Employer's local representative.
Particularly in view of the absence of interchange among the Em-
ployer's guards and the lack of any collective-bargaining history, we
believe that a unit of guards at the Rheem plant is appropriate.'
We find therefore that all plant protection employees of the Em-
ployer performing plant guard duties at Rheem Manufacturing Com-
pany, Burlington, New Jersey, excluding, sergeants' and all 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.]
MEMBERS MuRDoc$ and BEESON, dissenting :
We would dismiss this petition on the ground that the unit sought is,
inadequate in scope and therefore inappropriate.
The majority relies primarily on the absence of interchange among
these guards and those at other plants serviced by the Employer. We
think that this factor, significant though it may be, is outweighed by
others to which the majority does not give sufficient weight. Thus, all,
guards are finally approved at the regional office before they are hired;
they all receive the same pay and benefits. Most significantly, they
work for the Employer, not for the owner of the plant at which their-
work is done. Their pay, the conditions of their employment, and'
2 The nearest plant to that involved here at which the Employer has a contract is about
7 miles away. _
3 Richards Commercial and Industrial Protection Company, 100 NLRB 385
4 The Employer contends that the sergeants are supervisors . The Petitioner takes no.
position. We find that as the sergeants responsibly direct the work of the guards they
are supervisois and we shall exclude them
BRIDGEPORT BRASS COMPANY 997
their tenure in their jobs, all depend on this Employer. For this rea-
son, we believe that the community of interest among the guards far
exceeds any supposed coherence in the single plant as a unit, a coher-
ence based only on the fortuity of physical separation.' To us the unit
the majority approves can be justified only by the extent of the Peti-
tioner's organization, a basis expressly interdicted by the Act. Ac-
cordingly, we would dismiss the petition.
6 Nor, considering the realities of modern life, can we be much impressed with a sepa-
ration of no more than 7 miles from the closest plant to this one.
BRIDGEPORT BRASS COMPANY ALUMINUM DIVISION and INTERNATIONAL
DIE SINKERS CONFERENCE INDEPENDENT , PETITIONER . Case No.
7-KC-2523. November 23, 195 .
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 Myron K. Scott, 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 this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim 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.
The Petitioner seeks a unit of diesinkers. On April 7, 1954, the
Employer and Intervenor entered into a bargaining agreement cover-
ing a production and maintenance unit, which included among other
employees those in the requested unit. This contract, though includ-
ing substantial conditions of employment such as wages, insurance,
grievance, no-lockout, and no-strike provisions, was expressly denomi-
nated an "interim agreement" and provided that it would continue
in effect until such time as a "complete" agreement was negotiated
by the parties and became effective. It further provided that negotia-
tions for such an agreement would commence when 200 hourly paid
employees were working in the plant. The petition was filed on
June 10. On June 16, despite the fact that 200 such employees were
not then working, the Employer and Intervenor, at the latter's re-
I The International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft & Agricultural Implement
Workers, Local 387, CIO, intervened at the hearing.
110 NLRB No. 158.