Louis F. Dow Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 14, 1955

111 N.L.R.B. 609 (N.L.R.B. 1955)

LOUIS F. DOW COMPANY 609
are to be tallied in the following manner: The votes for the union
seeking the separate unit shall be counted among the valid votes cast,
but neither for nor against the union seeking the more comprehensive
unit; all other votes are to be accorded their face value, whether for
representation by the union seeking the comprehensive unit, or for
no union. The Regional Director conducting the election is instructed
to issue a certification of representatives to the labor organization
selected by a majority of the employees in the pooled group, which
the Board in such circumstances finds to be a single unit appropriate
for purposes of collective bargaining.
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.]
MEMBER MURDOCK took no part in the consideration of the above
Supplemental Decision and Direction of Elections.
,Louis F. Dow COMPANY and BUILDING SERVIc E EMPLOYEES INTERNA-
TIONAL , LOCAL 64, AFL, PETITIONER . Case No. 18-RC-399. Feb-
ruary 14,1955
Decision and Order
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Alan Bruce, hearing officer.
The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from preju-
dicial 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 em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. No 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 for the following reasons :
The Employer is a Minnesota corporation engaged in the manu-
facture of good-will advertising products such as calendars, novelties,
leather goods, and general printing. The Petitioner seeks a unit of
four employees who perform janitor, watchmen, and maintenance
duties under the supervision of a janitor foreman. Although the Em-
ployer does not dispute the appropriateness of the unit, he challenges
the authority of the Petitioner to represent three of these employees
who he contends perform guard duties.
One of the four employees petitioned for is a paper baler who uses
a mechanical baler to bale waste paper. The Employer does not con-
tend that he performs guard duties. However, there is some evidence
111 NLRB No. 101.
610 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
in the record that were one of the other janitors absent, he would prob-
ably substitute for him, but as of the hearing date, the situation had
not arisen. We find that the paper baler is not a guard.'
The three janitor-watchmen perform janitorial duties as well as
maintenance duties throughout the plant; someone is on duty at all
times-24 hours per day, 7 days each week. Their duties include open-
ing the doors to permit the entrance of employees. The Employer con-
tends that the janitor-watchmen guard the entrances into the plant
when the doors are open and introduced a schedule of hours which was
posted in the plant showing periods that these employees were to
remain at the doors. However, the janitor-watchmen testified at the
hearing that within the last few months, their janitorial duties had
increased and with the approval of their foreman, they no longer
remained at the entrance after they opened the doors. Occasionally
they inspect packages an employee may be carrying out as he leaves.
Authorized packages carry a label of the foreman. When the plant
is not in operation, the janitor-watchman makes a complete round of
the building to make sure everything is all right as soon as he reports
to work. Employees entering or leaving the plant when the doors are
closed must ring a bell and await the watchman-janitor to open the
door. No admission into the plant is permitted by the janitor-watch-
man of unauthorized personnel.
Although these employees are not armed, uniformed, or deputized, it
is their duty to inform the Employer of the unauthorized removal of
packages as well as the presence of any unauthorized person in the
plant. In these circumstances, we find the janitor-watchmen are
guards within the meaning of the Act.' Inasmuch as the Petitioner
admits to membership employees other than guards, Section 9 (b)
requires the dismissal of this petition in so far as it pertains to the
employees herein found to be guards. As to the paper baler, the Board'
has long found that one employee does not constitute an appropriate
bargaining unit. Accordingly, we shall dismiss the petition herein.
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
1 See Gen Pro, Inc., 110 NLRB 12.
2 See Walterboro Manufacturting Corporation, 106 NLRB 1383.
PARSONS PUNCH CORPORATION and INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED
AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT & AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF
AMERICA, UAW-CIO, PETITIONER . Case No. 7-RC-2423. Feb-
ruary 14,1955
Decision and Direction
On April 21, 1954, pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon
consent election, an election by secret ballot was conducted under the
direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Seventh
111 NLRB No. 102.