International Harvester Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 28, 1949

81 N.L.R.B. 374 (N.L.R.B. 1949)

In the Matter Of INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER COMPANY, EMPLOYER and
AMALGAMATED LOCAL 122, AFFILIATED WITH UNITED PLANT GUARD
WORKERS OF AMERICA, AN INTERNATIONAL UNION
Case No. 9-RC-189.-Decided January 28, 1949
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before a hearing
officer of the National Labor Relations Board. 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 National Labor Relations Act.
2. The labor organization named below claims to represent certain
employees of the Employer.
3. On April 17, 1945, the Board issued a Decision and Certification
of Representatives in Case No. 9-R-1730, certifying Local 402,
UAW-CIO, as bargaining representative of guards at the Employer's
Springfield, Ohio, plant. On August 14, 1946, the Employer and
Local 402, UAW CIO, entered into a contract covering these em-
ployees. This contract, although negotiated and signed by Local 402,
UAW-CIO, was in fact administered by employees who comprised a
subsidiary body of Local 402, UAW-CIO, known as Unit 2.
In February 1948, as a consequence of the Labor Management Re-
lations Act of 1947, several labor organizations affiliated with the
Congress of Industrial Organizations held a conference and formed
an organization known as Plant Guards Organizing Committee of
the CIO (herein called the PGOC-CIO).
Toward the end of April 1948, employees of the Employer who
comprised Unit 2 of Local 402, UAW-CIO, orally notified Local 402,
UAW-CIO, of their withdrawal therefrom and, at about the same
time, received a charter from the PGOC-CIO, becoming Amalga-
mated Local 122 of the PGOC-CIO.
In May 1948, the PGOC-CIO disaffiliated from the' CIO and
adopted the name of United Plant Guard Workers of America. an
International Union (herein called UPGWA), amending its consti-
81 N. L. R B., No 63
374
INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER COMPANY 375
tution in accordance therewith. Amalgamated Local 122 of the
PGOC-CIO, ratifying the changes, became Amalgamated Local 122,
UPGWA, the Petitioner herein. The Petitioner, as its predecessors
had done, continued to administer the contract for guards between the
Employer and Local 402, UAW-CIO. On June 4, 1948, the Peti-
tioner filed its petition in the instant case. On August 22, 1948, 1
year after the effective date of the Labor Management Relations Act
of 1947, the Employer withdrew, from Local 402, UAW-CIO, recog-
nition of the latter as bargaining representative of the Employer's
guards.
The Employer alleges that the Petitioner is presently affiliated with
Local 402, UAW-CIO, a labor organization which admits to member-
ship employees other than guards, and that the Petitioner is therefore,
under Section 9 (b) (3) of the Act, ineligible to be certified as the
collective bargaining representative of the Employer's guard S.2 The
Employer contends that the following incidents tend to support its al-
legation: (1) At two meetings between the Employer and the Peti-
tioner in May and June 1948, the chairman of the bargaining com-
mittee for Local 402, UAW-CIO, acted as a spokesman for the Peti-
tioner in an unsuccessful attempt to persuade the Employer to recog-
nize the Petitioner as the bargaining representative for its guards in
place of Local 402, UAW-CIO, the certified representative; (2) on
May 3, 1948, the Petitioner, in its election of a president for its local,
used ballots which bore the name of "Local 402-2," and not its own
name ; (3) Local 402, UAW-CIO, paid over to the Petitioner money;
representing the pay-roll deductions authorized by former guard
members of Local 402, UAW-CIO, pursuant to, and for the duration
of, the contract between the Employer and Local 402, UAW-CIO, the
recognized bargaining representative; and (4) Local 402, UAW-CIO,
permitted the Petitioner to use its hall rent-free.
The events set forth in chronological order above reveal the follow-
ing successive stages in the evolution of the Petitioner from a sector of
a UAW-CIO local to a local of an independent international union :
(1) the establishment of Unit 2 of Local 402, UAW-CIO, which ad-
ministered the contract covering the Employer's guards for Local 402,
UAW-CIO, whose membership included other employees of the Em-
ployer; (2) the organization of the PGOC-CIO; (3) the withdrawal
' Section 9 (b) (3) provides, in part, that no labor organization shall be certified as
the representative of employees in a bargaining unit of guards if such organization admits
to membership, or is affiliated directly or indirectly with an orgdnization which admits to
membership, employees other than guards "
2 The Employer also contends that the Petitioner is further disqualified, under Section
9 (b) (3), because it admits to membership equipment inspectors, who, it alleges, are
"persons other than guards " For reasons set forth below, we find no merit in this
contention.
376 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of Unit 2 from Local 402, UAW-CIO, and its emergence as Amal-
gamated Local 122, PGOC-CIO, on the receipt of a charter from the
PGOC-CIO; (4) the transformation of the PGOC-CIO into
UPGWA ; and (5) the receipt of an amended charter by Amalgamated
Local 122, indicating its new status as a local of UPGWA.
We are of the opinion that the Petitioner' s use of the Local 402,
UAW-CIO, official as its spokesman with the Employer and its receipt
of dues from its members through Local 402, UAW-CIO, were tem-
porary expedients made necessary by the Employer's insistence on its
duty to recognize Local 402, UAW-CIO, and only that organization,
as the bargaining representative of its guards. This duty terminated
on August 22, 1948. The Petitioner's past and current rent-free use
of the Local 402, UAW-CIO, hall does not, in our opinion, in itself
justify a conclusion that there is an "affiliation" between the two labor
organizations. The rent-free privilege accorded to the Petitioner's
members who were former members of Local 402, UAW-CIO, was a
privilege also accorded to several other labor organizations, whose
affiliation has not been in issue. The mere use of a union hall does not,
as the dissent suggests, establish "affiliation." We regard the Peti-
tioner's use of Local 402, UAW-CIO, ballots in its election for officers,
however, as a questionable practice because of the possible confusion
in the identity of the participating organization in the minds of em-
ployees voting in the election. As the election took place, however,
early in May 1948, at a time when the Petitioner was, like Local 402,
UAW-CIO, an organization affiliated with the CIO through the
PGOC, we do not regard such use of the ballots as having any real
significance on the issue of present affiliation now before us. In the
election which we shall direct, the name of the Petitioner in its present
form will clearly appear on the ballot. Employees voting will thereby
have an opportunity to select or reject the Petitioner, in its name capac-
ity as an unaffiliated labor organization, as their bargaining repre-
sentative.
Although the record discloses that a certain amount of comity,
mutual sympathy, and common purpose exists between the Petitioner
and Local 402, UAW-CIO, there is no showing that the Petitioner is
not now entirely free to and does not, formulate its own policies and
decide its own course of action. Therefore, on the basis of the entire
record in this proceeding, we find that the Petitioner is not affiliated,
directly or indirectly within the meaning of Section 9 (b) (3) of the
Act, with Local 402, UAW-CIO, or any other labor organization
which admits to its membership persons other than guards 3
3 Matter of Chrysler Corporation , 79 N. L R B 462. Cf Matter of Chrysler Corporation,
69 N. L R B. 1424; Matter of American Smelting and Refining Company, 66 N. L. R. B.
INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER COMPANY 377
We find that a question affecting commerce exists concerning the
representation of employees of the Employer, within the meaning of
Sections 9 (c) (1) and 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The plant-protection department at the Employer's Springfield,
Ohio, plant, includes three groups of employees : (1) patrolmen and
watchmen, (2) gatemen, and (3) equipment inspectors. These em-
ployees are all under the same general supervision. The Petitioner
contends that employees in these three groups comprise a single appro-
priate unit of guards. The Employer urges that equipment inspec-
tors are not guards within the meaning of the Act, and should there-
fore be excluded from a unit of guards.
Patrolmen and watchmen, listed as a single job category, cover a
regular beat through the Employer's plant, in the course of which they
check for fire, weather, and other hazards. In addition, they appre-
hend trespassers and disorderly persons, report employee violations
of safety regulations, and quell disorders.
Gatemen check incoming and outgoing vehicles, assign them to load-
ing docks, and make reports on their contents. Gatemen check the
identification of employees and visitors, apprehend trespassers, and
aid in quelling disorders and fires. Patrolmen and watchmen and
gatemen frequently interchange.
Equipment inspectors are responsible for the continued good order
and repair of the fire control equipment at the plant, including the
sprinkler system, hoses, valves, and fire extinguishers. They quell
disturbances and report violations of smoking regulations and other
safety rules. During emergencies and "overtime" periods, an equip-
ment inspector serves as gateman or as patrolman and watchman.
Patrolmen and watchmen and gatemen are clearly "guards." We
are of the opinion that the duties which equipment inspectors per-
form in protecting the Employer's property against employees and
other persons and their duties as relief "guards" are of sufficient im-
portance to justify their classification as guards , and we so find 4
We find that all patrolmen and watchmen, gatemen , and equipment
inspectors at the Employer's Springfield, Ohio, plant, excluding
supervisors and all other employees, constitute a unit appropriate for
the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section
9 (b) of the Act.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the
purposes of collective bargaining with the Employer, an election by
477; Matter of L A Young Spring i Wire Corporation , 65 N L. R B. 298; Matter of
Packard Motor Car Company, 61 N. L R. B. 4.
4 Matter of Chryater Corporation, 79 N. L . R. B. 462, supra.
378 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
secret ballot shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later
than 30 days from the date of this Direction, under the direction and
supervision of the Regional Director for the Region in which this
case was heard, and subject to Sections 203.61 and 203.62 of National
Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 5, as amended,
among the employees in the unit found appropriate in paragraph num-
bered 4, above, who were employed during the pay-roll period im-
mediately preceding the date of this Direction of Election, including
employees who did not work during said pay-roll period because they
were ill or on vacation or temporarily laid off, but excluding those
employees who have since quit or been discharged for cause and have
not been rehired or reinstated prior to the date of the election, and
also excluding employees on strike who are not entitled to reinstate-
ment, to determine whether or not they desire to be represented, for
purposes of collective bargaining, by Amalgamated Local 122, affili-
ated with United Plant Guard Workers of America, an International
Union.
MEMBER GRAY, dissenting :
The intent of Congress, as expressed in Section 9 (b) (3) of the
Act, is to permit the certification of a plant-guard union only where
it is clearly shown that such union is not "affiliated," directly or indi-
rectly, with any labor organization which admits to its membership
persons other than guards. It is therefore the duty of this Board,
before permitting a union [and in this case a successor union] to
obtain such certification as a collective bargaining representative un-
der the Act, to require that it shall have completely severed, and be
free of, all restraints, whether legal, financial, or otherwise, with labor
organizations representing other classifications of employees.
The facts show that Local 402, UAW-CIO, has regularly per-
mitted, and intends to permit, the Petitioner to use its hall rent-free
until such time as the latter shall have built up sufficient resources in
its treasury to become self-supporting. There is no way of telling
whether this gratuitous arrangement will continue for a month or a
year or longer. It not only constitutes specific and substantial finan-
cial support which negates the alleged "independence" of the Peti-
tioner but more subtly surrounds its membership meetings in their
early formative stages with an environment intimate and peculiarly
characteristic of the UAW-CIO, from which it admittedly springs.
It implies, to my mind, the very sort of "indirect" affiliation which
it was the intent of Congress to eliminate. Although Local 402,
UAW-CIO, has not, since August 22, 1948, received dues from the
Employer's guards by check-off which it can feed into the Petitioner's
INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER COMPANY 379
treasury , it nevertheless maintains an effective control over the Peti-
tioner through the free use of its hall. By the time the Petitioner's
resources have been built up to an adequate sum, the hold of Local
402, UAW-CIO, upon the Petitioner will have been fixed.
For these reasons, I am of the opinion that the Petitioner , though
nominally disaffiliated , is not yet free from indirect affiliation with
Local 402, UAW-CIO, and that the petition should accordingly be
dismissed.