Pullman-Standard Car Manufacturing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 23, 1945

61 N.L.R.B. 1398 (N.L.R.B. 1945)

In the Matter Of PULLMAN-STANDARD CAR MANUFACTURING COMPANY*
and LOCAL 3465, UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, C. I. O.*
Case No. 13-R-2777.-Decided May 23, 1945,
Messrs. Winston, Stawn cC Shaw, by Mr. G. B. Christenson, of
Chicago, Ill., for the Company.
Mr. Norman L. Harris, of East Chicago,* Ind., for the Union.
Mr. David V. Easton, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATE31ENT OF THE CASE
Upon a petition duly filed by Local 3465, United Steelworkers of
America, C. I. 0., herein called the Union, alleging that a question
affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation of em-
ployees of Pullman-Standard Car Manufacturing Company, Ham-
mond, Indiana, herein called the Company, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board provided for an appropriate hearing upon due notice
before John H. Hill, Trial Examiner. Said hearing was held at
Chicago, Illinois, on January 19 and 22, 1945. The Company and the
Union appeared, participated, and 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
to dismiss the petition. The Trial Examiner reserved ruling on this
motion for the Board. For 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 opportunity 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, a Delaware cor-
poration with its principal office and place of business located in
*The above designations are in accord with motions to amend made by the parties and
granted by the Trial Examiner at the hearing
61 N. L. R. B., No. 225.
1398
PULLMAN-STANDARD CAR MANUFACTURING COMPANY 1399
Chicago, Illinois, operates a plant located at Hammond, Indiana, with
which we are concerned herein. The Company is engaged at its Ham-
mond plant in manufacturing ordnance items for the United States
Army and Navy. Raw materials valued in excess of $1,000,000 are
shipped annually to the Hammond plant from points outside the State
of Indiana, and approximately the entire annual output of said plant,
which is valued in excess of $1,000,000, is shipped to points outside the
State of Indiana.
The Company admits, with respect to the operation of the Ham-
mond plant, that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the National Labor Relations Act, and we so find.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Local 3465, United Steelworkers of America, is a labor organization
affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, admitting
to membership employees of the Company.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
On or about November 9, 1944, the Company received a letter from
the Union requesting recognition as the collective bargaining agent
of certain of its employees at the Hammond plant. The Company, in
its reply dated November 13, 1944, declined to extend such recognition.
A statement of a Board Field Examiner, introduced into evidence
at the hearing, indicates that the Unionxepresents a substantial number
of employees 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. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The Union seeks a unit composed of all guards of the Company at
its Hammond plant, excluding the chief, captains, and all other em-
ployees. While taking no position' with respect to the classifications
comprising the proposed unit, the Company strongly contends that
this unit is inappropriate for the purposes-of collective bargaining.
It bases its contention upon various grounds which are considered in
the course of the following discussion:
The record indicates that the Company employs 50 guards who,
together with certain other classifications of employees comprise its
Plant Protection and Safety Department.. This department is under
'The Field Examiner reported that the Union submitted 31 designations , of which 28
contained the names of persons appearing upon the Company's pay roll of December 16,
1944 ; and that said pay roll indicated that the unit sought by the Union herein consisted
of 50 employees.
1400 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the supervision of a superintendent. However, the immediate super-
visors of the guards are the chief and 4 captains, who are directly
responsible to the superintendent. All guards are, at the present time,
uniformed members of the Auxiliary Military Police, and all, with the
exception of 5 female guards, bear arms. Prior to their militariza-
tion which took place approximately 2 years ago, these employees had
been deputized by the City of Hammond, and several still retain their
deputized status. The headquarters of these employees is a squad
room wherein they don their uniforms and receive their instructions.
Their duties consist of patrolling the buildings, passing upon the
credentials of employees, assisting in investigations which may be
necessitated, and reporting violations by employees of company rules
and regulations? The guards have no power to discipline employees
for rule infractions and their authority is confined merely to making
reports. The foregoing had been the duties of the guards prior to
their militarization and such militarization brought about no change
in these duties. Furthermore the superintendent testified that he
still has authority to hire and discharge the guards, and there is
no evidence in the record which would indicate that their militariza-
tion has affected the authority of the Company, in these respects.s
The guards receive the same vacation, retirement, and insurance plan
benefits as production and maintenance employees; they are hourly
paid; and their wages are subject to similar deductions, such as for'
Social Security benefits. Under these circumstances, it is apparent
that, despite the Army's paramount authority over the guards in the
military sphere, the Company exercises sufficient day to day control
over their tenure of employment, their working conditions, and their
duties to warrant our finding that they are employees of the Company
within the meaning of the Act.4
The Company presently recognizes Local 2534, United Steel Work-
ers of America, C. I. 0., herein referred to as Local 2534, as the collec-
tive bargaining representative of the production and maintenance
employees at the Hammond plant. Although both the Union and
Local 2534 are affiliated with the same international and have the
same district officers, the record indicates that each is a separate or-
ganization. The Company asserts that guards are confidential em-
ployees, whose duties do not permit of any division in allegiance and
maintains, in effect, that conflicting loyalties are engendered when the
2 These reports are usually made to the guards' supervisors , although some violations
may be reported to the employee 's supervisor in order that immediate action may be
taken by the latter.
8 The only evidence adduced at the hearing which would indicate any loss of control by
the Company over these employees is a .statement by the superintendent to the effect that
the guards are subject to the Articles of War, to military trial , and to call to other plants
by United States Army authorities:
See Matter of Chrysler Corporation, Hsghland Parks Plant, 44 N. L R. B. 881 ;
Matter of Dravo Corporation , 52 N. L. R B. 322 ; Matter of International Harvester
Company, Milwaukee Works, 61 N L. R. B. 912
PULLMAN-STANDARD CAR MANUFACTURING COMPANY 1401
organizations representing guards and the production and mainte-
nance employees have the same constitution and the same district
officers. We have previously found that similarly engaged personnel
are monitorial employees rather than confidential 5 Furthermore, the
unit sought in this proceeding is a separate grouping of guards which,
if established, will insulate their collective bargaining from that of all
other employees of the Company. Thus, their separate problems and
interests growing out of their peculiar occupation, will be recognized,
and will not be merged with or subordinated to any interests of the
production and maintenance employees which may be in conflict. We
also note that the War Department has recognized that our practice
of placing sueh,employees in segregated units serves to obviate possible
conflicts of interests .r Moreover, we have clearly indicated our belief
on several occasions that "self-organization for collective bargaining
is not incompatible with efficient and faithful discharge of duty." 7
Remedy for neglect of duty lies in the Company's power to discharge
and discipline. To reject the efforts of guards to obtain collective
bargaining rights safeguarded by the Act will not avert difficulties, if
any, arising solely from their union allegiance. We are persuaded
that the unit sought herein is appropriate and will effectuate the
policies of the Act. In reaching this conclusion we are not unmindful
that this country is still at war and that the Company is engaged in
war production, and We have fully considered the national welfare.
That steady and unimpeded flow of commerce which the Act is de-
signed to maintain by the encouragement of the orderly procedures
of collective bargaining is doubly essential in time of war. It is in
keeping with the policies of the Act and it is in the public interest to
foster and protect collective bargaining by guards, thereby promoting
a practice necessary to the amicable settlement of labor disputes and
eliminating obstructions to commerce s
5 Matter of Dravo Corporation , supra; Matter of Bethlehem Steel Company, 61
N L R B 892.
Memorandum dated July 10, 1943, issued by the war Department as a supplement to
Circular No, 15 states, in part , as follows
Subject : Plant guards.
1. It has been reported to this headquarters that labor officers are interpreting
Circular No. 15, this headquarters, 17 March 1943, subject, "Auxiliary Military
Police," a,, prohibiting membership of plant guards enrolled as Auxiliary Military
Police in the sane trade union local as that representing production and maintenance
workers
2. Paragraph 6 (h) (2), Circular No 15 presents applicable war Department policy
on plant guard labor representation.
3 In the event that plant guards enrolled as Auxiliary Military Police desire to
le represented in collective bargaining with the management , they should be repre
sented by a bargaining unit other than that representing the production and mainte-
nance workers However, in such event, both bargaining units may be affiliated with
the same trade union local, provided they are, in fact, separate bargaining units.
See Matter of Drava Corporation, supra
We are aware of the decisions of the courts in N L. it. B. v. Jones & Laughlin Steel
Corporation, 146 F (2d) 718 ( C. C A. 6 ), and N. L. it. B. v E. C. Atkins and Company,
147 F. ( 2d) 730 ( C. C. A. 7 ), but have not acquiesced in the doctrine announced by the
courts in these cases with respect to guard units.
1402 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Accordingly, we find that all guards of the Company at its Ham-
mond plant, excluding the chief, captains, 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, and all other -employees of the Company, con-
stitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining,
within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.9
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 Elec-
tion herein, subject to the limitations and- additions set forth in the
Direction 10
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 Relations
Act, and pursuant to Article III, Section 9, of National Labor Rela-
tions Board Rules and Regulations-Series 3, as amended, it is hereby
DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation to ascertain representa-
tives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Pullman-Standard
Car Manufacturing Company, Hammond, Indiana, 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 direction
and supervision of the Regional Director for the Thirteenth 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 Section
IV, above, who were employed during the pay-roll period immediately
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 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, to determine whether or not they desire to be represented
by United Steelworkers of America, C. I. 0., Local 3465, for the
purposes of collective bargaining.
9 Matter of Drava Corporation , supra (Militarized guards ) ; cf. Matter of Columbian
Paper Company, 60 N. L R B 1201 ( Deputized guards ) , Matter of Bethlehem Steel Com
pang, 61 N L R B. 892 (Ordinary guards)
10 The Union requested that it be designated on the ballot as "United Steelworkers of
America, C I. O., Local 3465." This request is hereby granted