Hires, Castner and Harris, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 30, 1953

107 N.L.R.B. 645 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

HIRES, CASTNER AND HARRIS, INC. 645
(3) of the Act, and because Section 9 (b) (3) prohibits the in-
clusion of guards in a unit with other employees, we find that
the Intervenor ' s contract is no bar to this proceeding.'
The Employer employs about 73 employees who are clas-
sified as watchmen. The watchmen patrol the plant checking
for fires, theft, enforcing no-smoking rules, and preventing
"horse play" among employees . They perform gate duty where
they check the identification of employees entering the plant
and they check employees leaving the plant to ascertain wheth-
er or not the employees are taking away plant property. They
also register trucks making deliveries to the plant . It is clear
that the watchmen enforce against employees and other per-
sons rules to protect property of the Employer. We, therefore,
find that the watchmen are guards within the meaning of 9 (b)
(3) of the Act.
Although the Employer contends that the safety department
employees perform duties similar to those of the watchmen,
there was very little evidence adduced at the hearing concern-
ing the safety employees. The record, however, shows that
at least two employees from the safety department contin-
uously check other employees engaged in hazardous work to
see whether or not they are wearing safety glasses and safety
shoes, and that they also continuously check for fire hazards.
Because it appears that the duties of the safety employees are
confined to checking for fire hazards and the checking of other
employees concerning the wearing of safety equipment, we find
that the safety employees are not guards within the meaning of
the Act. 8 Accordingly, they cannot properly be included in the
unit with the watchmen.
We find that all watchmen employed by the Employer at its
Kenosha, Wisconsin, plant, excluding safety employees, office
and clerical employees, all other employees, and supervisors
as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the
purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9 (b) (3) of the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
2 See Sonotone Corporation, 100 NLRB 1127.
SSee Schenley Distillers, Inc., 92 NLRB 1130; Chance Vought Aircraft Corporation, 102
NLRB 556.
HIRES, CASTNER AND HARRIS, INC. and DISTRICT NO. 1,
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, AFL,
Petitioner . Case No. 4-RC-2112. December 30, 1953
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 Morris
107 NLRB No. 139.
646 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Mogerman, hearing officer . The hearing officer's rulings made
at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby
affirmed. 1
Upon the entire record in this case , the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the mean-
ing of the Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent
certain employees of the Employer.
3. The Employer and Machine , Tool and Die Local 155,
United Radio and Machine Workers of America ( UE), herein
called the Intervenor , urge as a bar to this proceeding a con-
tract executed by them on July 30, 1953, for a 1-year term, and
subject to automatic renewal in the absence of a 30-day written
notice of change. The Petitioner contends that the contract is
not a bar because ( 1) the contract contains an invalid union-
security clause; and ( 2) a schism has occurred within the ranks
of the Intervenor . The contract contains the following union-
security provisions:
It is understood and agreed that all employees covered
by this, agreement shall become members of the Union
within thirty ( 30) days of the signing of this agreement
and the Union agrees to accept such employees and re-
tain them as members, in accordance with the present
by-laws of the Union or any reasonable change therein.
* * * All new employees , as a condition of their employ-
ment, shall during the term of this contract , be required
to join the Union and the Union agrees to accept new
employees on the same terms as those set forth above.
It is understood and agreed , however, in event the Company
is unable to hire a special employee willing to join the
Union, and the Union after notice from the Company is
unable to furnish a competent employee for the position
who would be willing to become a member of the Union,
then in that event the Company may employ such new
employee as may be necessary for the efficient operation
of the plant , without having such new employee become a
member of the Union.
The Company is to furnish the Union with the hiring
date, classification and wage rate of all new employees.
This information is to be submitted within forty-eight
( 48) hours after a new employee is hired.
These provisions clearly exceed the limited form of union-
security permitted by Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act, as they fail
to afford new employees a 30-day period within which to join
1 The petition and other formal papers are hereby amended to show the correct name of
the Employer as it appears in the caption.
NEPHI PROCESSING PLANT, INC. 647
the Intervenor.2 We therefore find that the contract cannot
operate as a bar to the instant proceeding. 3
We find that a question affecting commerce exists concerning
the representation of employees of the Employer within the
meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. We find, in accordance with the agreement of the parties,
that all production and maintenance employees at the Employer's
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, plant, excluding draftsmen, pat-
ternmakers, office clerical employees, guards, foremen, and
other supervisors , 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.)
Chairman Farmer took no part in the consideration of the
above Decision and Direction of Elections.
2Cf. New Castle Products, Incorporated, 99 NLRB 811.
sin view of this disposition of the contract bar issue, we find it unnecessary to consider
the schism issue raised by the Petitioner.
NEPHI PROCESSING PLANT, INC. 1 and AMALGAMATED
MEAT CUTTERS & BUTCHER WORKMEN OF NORTH
AMERICA, LOCAL 537, AFL, Petitioner. Case No. 20-RC-
2428. December 30, 1953
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 Robert J.
Scolnick, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made
at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby
affirmed. 2
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in the buying and raising of
turkeys, the buying and growing of feed for turkeys, and the
processing of its own and other turkeys for marketing. It
operates approximately 50 turkey ranches all within a 20-mile
radius of Nephi, Utah. At Nephi it operates a processing plant
in which turkeys are slaughtered, picked, eviscerated, frozen,
and packed for shipment to markets all over the country. The
Employer annually ships to points outside the State of Utah,
packaged turkeys valued in excess of $1,500,000. Its annual
1As amended at the hearing.
2As all parties appeared at the hearing and were heard on all issues, the Employer's
contention that it had insufficient notice of hearing is without merit.
107 NLRB No. 140.