Pullman-Standard Car Manufacturing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 10, 1945

63 N.L.R.B. 822 (N.L.R.B. 1945)

In the Matter Of PULLMAN-SIANDARD CAR MANUFACTURING COMPANY
and UNITED STEELWORKERS or AMERICA, C. I. O.
Case No. 6-R-1133.-Decided September 10, 1945
Winston, Strcuwn di Shaw, by Mr. Neal J. McAuliffe, of Chicago, Ill.,
and Mr. Harry M. Hays, of Butler, Pa., for the Company.
Mr. John J. Brownlee, of Pittsburgh, Pa., Mr. S. Harold Grossman,
of Tarentum, Pa., and Mr. Eugene Markwell, of Butler, Pa., for the
CIO.
Mr. Donald H. Frank, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a petition duly filed by United Steelworkers of America,
C. I. 0., herein called the CIO, alleging that a question affecting com-
merce had arisen concerning the representation of employees of Pull-
man-Standard Car Manufacturing Company, Butler, Pennsylvania,
herein called the Company, the National Labor Relations Board pro-
vided for an appropriate hearing upon due notice before Allen Sin-
sheimer, Jr., Trial Examiner. The hearing was held at Butler, Penn-
sylvania, on June 1, 1945. The Company and the CIO appeared and
participated. All parties were afforded full opportunity to be heard,
to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence
bearing on the issues.
At the hearing, the Company moved the. dismissal of the petition.
Ruling on the motion was reserved for the Board. For the reasons
stated in Section IV, infra, the motion is hereby denied. The Trial
Examiner's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial
error and are hereby affirmed. All parties were afforded an oppor-
tunity to file briefs with the Board.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Pullman-Standard Car Manufacturing Company is a Delaware cor-
poration, engaged in the manufacture of railway freight cars and the
63 N. L. It. B, No 126.
822
PULLMAN-STANDARD CAR MANUFACTURING CO. 823
appurtenances thereto, in the manufacture of shells for the United
States Army, and in commercial forge work. The Company operates
plants in Illinois, Massachusetts, Alabama, Louisiana, Texas, Indiana,
and Pennsylvania. The plant at Butler, Pennsylvania, the sole opera-
tion of the Company involved in this proceeding, purchases annually
outside the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania supplies valued in excess
of $1,000,000. During 1944, the Company shipped from the Butler
plant to points outside the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania finished
products valued in excess of $1,000,000. The Butler plant was en-
gaged, at the time of the hearing, entirely in war production.
The Company admits that it is engaged in commerce within the_
meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, and we so find.
H. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
United Steelworkers of America, affiliated with the Congress of
Industrial Organizations, is a labor organization admitting to mem-
bership employees of the Company.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Company has refused to grant recognition to the CIO as the
exclusive bargaining representative of the Company's plant-protection
employees upon-the grounds discussed in Section IV, infra.
A statement of a Board agent, introduced into evidence at the hear-
ing, indicates that the CIO represents a substantial number of em-
ployees in the unit hereinafter found appropriate.
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning
the representation of employees of the Company, within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. TIIE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The CIO seeks a unit of the plant-protection employees of the
Company at the Butler plant, iijcluding those employees designated
on the pay rolls as corporals, sergeants, and lieutenants, but excluding
supervisory employees within our usual definition. The Company
takes no stand as to the propriety of the inclusions and exclusions
sought, but contends that any unit of plant-protection personnel is
inappropriate on the ground that their loyal performance as repre-
sentatives of management would be impaired by membership in the
CIO inasmuch as the CIO presently represents the Company's pro-
duction and maintenance employees. The Company asserts that the
CIO cannot therefore properly represent employees whose duties
1 The Field Examiner reported that the CIO submitted 18 application -for-membership
cards , and that there were 26 employees in the unit sought. The cards were dated 13 in
November and 2 in December 1944, and 3 in February 1945.
824 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
involve the exercise of authority over the Company's other employees,
especially in light of the "obligation" which employees joining the
CIO are required to assume. Additionally, the Company argues that
these employees perform certain activities of a confidential nature, and
for that reason do not constitute an appropriate unit.
The guards involved herein perform the tasks usually associated
with their position : they check all persons entering or leaving the plant
area; they patrol the company property for fires and fire hazards, and
extinguish minor blazes; and they halt disorders occurring on the
property. Thus, in general, it is their duty to protect the Company's
property by safety precaution and maintenance of discipline. In per-
forming these functions, they may deny entrance to any person whom
they deem dangerous, or evict him; they have authority, as well, to
arrest any person engaging in altercations on plant property, and take
him into custody. Although they have never exercised that authority,.
they have surrendered offenders to the police authorities at the Com-
pany's gates. Of the 26 guards, 19 are deputized. The remainder have
not been deputized because they were not in the Company's employ at
the time, in 1912, of the deputization; and when they were hired, all of
the guards were militarized, which the Company considered made
deputization superfluous. Although the guards were subsequently de-
militarized, the more recently hired ones have still not been deputized.2
The Company's guard chief admitted that deputization alters neither
the duties nor the powers of the guards, but has merely "psychological"
value. All but 4 of the 26 guards are armed; all wear badges. From
time to time, the guards have been called upon to conduct investigations
for the Federal Bureau of Investigation, or for the Company concern-
ing thefts.
We have had frequent occasion in previous, similar, cases to con-
sider the position of similar plant-protection personnel as the alleged
representatives of management.3 While it was true in those cases, as
here, that the plant guards had a' duty to protect the plant and its
personnel from both employees and others who were drunk, disorderly,
or otherwise dangerous, we have consistently held that such duty
creates merely a monitorial relationship between guards and other em-
ployees, and does not affect the statutory right of the guards, as em-
ployees, to bargain collectively.' We have, moreover, repeatedly held
2 The Company's guard chief testified that he would like to see his newer men deputized,
but that this step would probably not be taken since the more recent additions to the
guard force, those who have not been deputized, will be the first to be laid off when a con-
templated reduction in plant activities ensues
8 See Matter of Bethlehem-Fairfield Shipyard, rue., 61 N. L. R. B 901; Matter of Bethle-
hem Steel Company, 61 N L. R. B. 892, and the cases cited therein.
* The Company attributes recent unrest among its guards to their organizational activi-
ties The Act , of course, prescribes collective bargaining as a remedy for industrial unrest,
and the Company may, as always , utilize its power of discipline and discharge to correct
neglect of duty. See Matter of Chrysler Corporation, 44 N. L. R. B.,881 We note,
PULLMAN-STANDARD CAR MANUFACTURING CO. 825
that a union which represents other employees of a company may like-
wise represent that company's plant-protection personnels It is the
Company's assertion that sundry provisions of the CIO's constitution
and "obligation" make CIO membership and competent performance
of guard duties imcompatible. .We have examined those provisions and
perceive nothing which would necessarily preclude the plant-protec-
tion employees from performing their duties conscientiously. More-
over, the investigatory work of the guards, while clearly secret, does
not make them "confidential employees" within our customary defini-
tion since these investigations are not the result of and do not result in
the formulation or administration of company labor relations policy.
A representative of the CIO stated that it is the CIO's intention to
establish a separate unit of guard employees, and thereby, through that
unit's bargaining committees, to negotiate with the Company and
present grievances• to it separately.6 We take this opportunity to re-
peat that we contemplate that this separation of the bargaining units
in their negotiations with the Company and their day-to-day activities
will be one of fact, not merely form, and shall be reflected in all bar-
gaining between the Company and any duly designated bargaining
representative as well as in negotiations for a separate contract for the
plant-protection employees.7
As previously stated, the Company takes no stand on inclusions in
and exclusions from the unit. The CIO would exclude the chief of
police, but would include the so-called corporals, sergeants, and lieu-
tenants. The chief is in charge of the entire guard force, and does all
hiring and discharging of the personnel under him. His supervisory
authority is therefore clear, and we shall exclude him from the unit
hereinafter deemed appropriate. The record likewise makes it clear
that the two employees listed on the pay rolls as corporals possess no
supervisory authority, and they shall therefore be included in the unit
hereinafter deemed appropriate.
The two employees whom the pay roll lists as sergeants perform
the normal guard functions; in addition, they recommend hire and
discipline. The chief testified, however, that any guard may recom-
mend hire, and that whether or not such recommendation is accepted
depends upon the personality of the recommending person and not
upon his rank. The chief testified, moreover, that when a sergeant
recommends discipline, the case is invariably investigated before any
action is taken. From these facts it is clear that the sergeants do not
moreover, that the chief testified that reprimands had resulted in improved performance,
and that the guard force had proved more competent since their grievances with respect to
back pay and vacations were remedied.
5 See Matter of National Lead Company , Titanium Division, 62 N. L. R. B. 107, and cases
cited therein
The guards are not now members of Local 1415 of the CIO which represents the pro-
duction and maintenance employees , but of the international organization.
7 Matter of Standard Steel Spring Company, 62 N. L. R. B. 660.
826 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
exercise supervisory authority within our usual definition and we shall
include them in the unit hereinafter deemed appropriate.
The Company employs four so-called lieutenants. One of these
men 8 was in charge of rationing and transportation at the time of
the hearing. He performs no supervisory functions in that position
and therefore we shall include him in the bargaining unit. The other
employees in this category are in charge of the three guard shifts.
Their authority includes the rearrangement of work details in the
absence of one of the men and they may assign special tasks to their
men. They check the performance of their guards and report their
findings to the chief, who relies on those reports in making promotions.
They remove guards from their jobs for derelictions and recommend
discharge therefor to the chief, who has in the past discharged two
men upon a lieutenant's recommendation. They discipline their
guards for misconduct, and the chief has always upheld their decisions
in such cases. They may grant their men time off. They perform
no guard duties themselves. It is clear from these facts that the three
lieutenants are supervisory employees within our usual definition, and
they are excluded, as such, from the unit determination made herein-
after.
We find that all plant-protection employees of the Company at
the Butler plant, including the corporals, sergeants, and the trans-
portation lieutenant, but excluding the chief and all other supervisory
employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or
otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or effectively rec-
ommend such action, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes
of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the
Act.
V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
We shall direct that the question concerning representation which
has arisen be resolved by an election by secret ballot among the em-
ployees in the appropriate unit who were employed during the pay-roll
period immediately preceding the date of the Direction of Election
herein, subject to the limitations and additions set forth in the Direc-
tion.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National
Labor Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, and pursuant to Article III, Section 9, of National Labor
Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 3, as amended, it is
hereby
8 Milford V. Myers.
PULLMAN-STANDARD CAR MANUFACTURING CO. 827
DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation to ascertain represen-
tatives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Pullman-Stand-
ard Car Manufacturing Company, Butler, Pennsylvania, an election
by secret ballot -shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later
than thirty (30) days from the date of this Direction, under the direc-
tion and supervision of the Regional Director for the Sixth Region,
acting in this matter as agent for the National Labor Relations Board,
and subject to Article III, Sections 10 and 11, of said Rules and Regu-
lations, among the employees in the unit found appropriate in Sec-
tion IV, above, who were employed during the pay-roll period imme-
diately preceding the date of this Direction, including employees who
did not work during said pay-roll period because they were ill or on
vacation or temporarily laid off, and including employees in the armed
forces of the United States who present themselves in person at the
polls, but excluding any who have since quit or been discharged for
cause and have not been rehired or reinstated prior to the date of the
election, to determine whether or not they desire to be represented by
United Steelworkers of America, C. I. 0., for the purposes of
collective bargaining.
CHAIRMAN HERZOG took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Direction of Election.-