Francis I Du Pont and Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 7, 1955

113 N.L.R.B. 57 (N.L.R.B. 1955)

FRANCIS I. DU PONT AND COMPANY 57
has sufficient representative interests among those employees."' In
the instant case, we have administratively determined that the Peti-
tioner has -failed to make the necessary showing of interest among
the production employees and blacksmiths. We shall, therefore, not
direct an election for these employees.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
n See Tin Processing Corporation, 96 NLRB 300, at p. 303; Standard & Poor's Corpora-
tion, 95 NLRB 248, at pp. 249, 250.
Francis I. Du Pont and Company and, Western Broker Division
of Commercial Telegraphers Union , AFL, Petitioner. Case No.
13-RC-4.42. July 7,1955 -
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 Allen P. Haas, 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 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 unit of telegraphic employees at the Em-
ployer's 62 offices in California, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Indiana,
Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio, Oklahoma, Ne-
braska, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Ten-
nessee, Texas, Wisconsin, and the District of Columbia, including
telegraphers, teletypists, and trainees, but excluding all other em-
ployees, professional employees, and all supervisors as defined in the
Act. The Employer contends that the only appropriate unit should
be confined to the telegraphic employees at its Chicago, Illinois, office.
The Employer is a partnership with its principal offices in New
York, New York, where it operates as a broker and dealer in securities
and commodities and is a member of various national and local
securities and commodities exchanges. Prior to April 1, 1954, the
Employer maintained offices in 10 States and the District of Columbia
under the Francis I. Du Pont title, with its main offices in New York
City where it dealt primarily in the sale and purchase of stocks. Oil
that date, the Employer acquired the business of James E. Bennett
113 NLRB No. 6.
58 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
& Co., having offices in 12 States and a main office in Chicago, Illinois,
where Bennett engaged primarily in the sale and purchase of com-
modities. No history of collective bargaining exists for the original
Du Pont employees. However, the Petitioner has, since its certifica-
tion in 1944, represented the telegraphic employees of the former
Bennett firm on a systemwide basis under a contract which is cur-
rently in effect and which will run until February 15, 1956.
With the merger of the Bennett and Diu Pont organizations, the
partners of the respective firms have become partners of the Employer,
the profits of both firms represent the profits of the Employer, and the
operating methods of Bennett are being attuned to the more modern
methods employed by Du Pont. As a result of the merger, the former
Bennett office in New York City has been closed and the business of
that office is now transacted by the New York City office of Du Pont.
Moreover, the Employer testified that, at the time of the hearing,
larger quarters had been acquired in Chicago in which the Du Pont
and Bennett offices in that city have been, or are about to be, consoli-
dated. With the consolidation of these Chicago offices, all telegra-
phers, teletypists, and trainees of both organizations will be subject to
the same supervision and conditions of employment.
All of the Employer's offices are connected by a wire service which
is operated by the telegraphers and teletypists here sought. At the
main offices in Chicago and New York City, and those in large metro-
politan centers, the telegraphic employees devote practically all their
time to transmitting orders from customers, receiving confirmations
of orders placed, and monitoring the wires for current market quota-
tions. In the smaller branch offices, telegraphic employees spend
from 50 to 55 percent of their time marking quotations on the boards,
performing bookkeeping chores, and handling bank deposits, although
basically their duties concern the transmission of orders and the receipt
of market intelligence. The record discloses that orders placed for
commodities at a former Du Pont office are transmitted to the main
office of the former Bennett organization in Chicago for fulfillment and
that orders for securities placed at a former Bennett office are sent to
the main office of the former Du Pont firm. In each case, the teleg-
raphers and teletypists employ the appropriate symbols and standards
for transmission of the orders nvlach are indigenous to the respective
transactions.
While telegraphic personnel are hired and discharged by branch
managers, it appears that overall personnel policies, including wage
determinations and promotions, emanate ultimately from the per-
sonnel manager and the partners of the Employer. The record
further discloses that uniform pension, sickness, life insurance, and
bonus plans apply to all employees in the requested unit, and that,
while hours of work differ among the offices because of their location
FRANCIS I. DU PONT AND COMPANY 59
in various time zones, there is a uniform workweek for all telegraphic
personnel.
In view of the foregoing, including the integrated nature of the
Employer's operations,' and the community of interests and duties of
the telegraphic employees, we find, contrary to the Employer's con-
tention, that a systemwide unit of telegraphers, teletypists, and
trainees at the Employer's offices throughout the United States is
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining.'
Accordingly, we find that the following employees constitute a unit
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the mean-
ing of Section 9 (b) of the Act :
All telegraphic employees at the Employer's 62 offices in California,
Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Min-
nesota, Missouri, Ohio, Oklahoma, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York,
North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Wisconsin, and
the District of Columbia, including telegraphers, teletypists, and
trainees, but excluding all other employees, professional employees,
and all supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
MEMBER RODGERS, dissenting :
Unlike my colleagues, I would find the unit sought by the Petitioner
inappropriate. The Petitioner requested an election in a nationwide
unit of telegraphic employees. The facts indicate no reasonable basis
to support such a unit. The Company's offices are located in widely
separated geographical locations; there is no interchange of employees
among these offices; there is no contact between the employees of one
office and those of another; some offices specialize in commodities and
some in securities; operators are not hired centrally, but by managers
at the various locations; wage adjustments are effectively recom-
mended by each manager, who has autonomy in these matters; the
bonus plan affecting Du Pont offices is different from that affecting
those of the Bennett offices ; supervision of employees rests with the
manager of each individual location; and duties of employees vary
from office to office. In short, the facts indicate no centralization with
respect to either labor relations policies or supervision.
There is an added factor. Of the 111 employees in the unit sought,
47 were formerly employed by Bennett. The Employer acquired the
Bennett operations in April 1954. The Bennett employees were the
subject of a bargaining history based upon a consent election, and a
collective-bargaining agreement with respect to those employees is
currently being recognized by the Employer. However, there has
See Southwestern Bell Telephone Company, 108 NLRB 1106.
See Uhlmann Grain Company, 50 NLRB' 70, in which the Board expressed a policy
favoring systemwide units in the bi okerage business
60 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
never been any bargaining representative for any of the employees in
the classifications involved in the Du Pont offices . By peremptorily
merging the two groups , in its direction of election the majority pre-
cludes the Du Pont employees from a self -determination election.
In the light of the absence of integrated control of labor relations
and supervision, the absence of a bargaining history for the Du Pont
employees, a current collective-bargaining agreement covering the
Bennett employees, and the fact that the Board has not in the past
expressed any policy favoring systemwide units in the brokerage busi-
ness,3 which, concededly, is not a public utility nor comparable to a
public utility, I perceive no valid basis for the majority's unit deter-
mination , and would therefore dismiss the petition.
CHAIRMAN FARMER and MEMBER LEEDODI took no part in the con-
sideration of the above Decision and Direction of Election.
3 Uhlmann Giatn Company, 50 NLRB 76 , decided more than 12 years ago , and relied
on by the majority does not express a Board policy favoring systemwide units in the broker-
age business . As the Board 's decision in that case makes clear , it was decided on the factual
circumstances therein present , and not on any Boaid policy as such with respect to the
brokerage industry.
A. C. Lawrence Leather Company, a Division of Swift and Com-
pany, Petitioner and International Fur and Leather Workers
Union of the United States and Canada and Its Local 33
A. C. Lawrence Leather Company and Local 33, Leather Work-
ers Organizing Committee , CIO, Petitioner . Cases Nos. 1-R111-
205 and 1-RC-3987. July 7,1965
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Joseph Lepie, hearing offi-
cer. 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
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. At the hearing, over the objection of the petitioning Union,
Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America,
AFL, and its Local 33-L were permitted to intervene based upon an
alleged contractual relationship with the Employer covering the
I Under the ciicumstances of this case , as noted herein , we find without merit the Inter-
venor's contention that the instant petitions should be dismissed until such time as the
CIO-AFL "no raiding" agicenient is fully processed As the record and briefs in this
proceeding adequately present the issues and the positions of the parties, the Intervenor's
request for oral argument before the Boaid is hereby denied.
113 NLRB No. 10.