Roane-Anderson Co.Download PDFNational Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsAug 31, 195195 N.L.R.B. 1501 (N.L.R.B. 1951) Copy Citation ROANE-ANDERSON COMPANY 1501 ployment, and if an understanding is reached, embody such under- standing in a signed agreement. The bargaining unit is : All production and maintenance employees of the Respond- ent at its Stockton, California, plant, including employees in the experiment division, but excluding office, office clerical, and professional employees, guards, and supervisors as de- fined in the Act. WE WILL NOT engage in any acts in any manner interfering with the efforts Of INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT, AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, to negotiate for, or represent, the employees in the bargain- ing unit described above. J. I. CASE COMPANY, Employer. By ------------------------ (Representative ) (Title) Dated-------------------- This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. ROANS-ANDERSON COMPANY and OAK RIDGE GUARDS UNION, LOCAL 3, INTERNATIONAL GUARDS UNION OF AMERICA ( IND.), PETITIONER. Case No. 10-RC-1360. August 31,1951 Decision and Order Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Frank E. Hamilton, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Reynolds and Murdock]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 1. The Company is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 2. The labor organization involved claims to represent employees of the Company. 3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa- tion of employees of the Company within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, for the following reasons: The Petitioner seeks to represent a unit of all patrolmen and detec- tives of the Oak Ridge, Tennessee, Police Department. The Roane- 95 NLRB No. 209. 1502 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR' RELATIONS BOARD Anderson Company, hereinafter referred to as the Company, contends that:these patrolmen,and detectives are employees of the Atomic En- ergy Commission, hereinafter called AEC, and therefore no employer- employee relationship exists between itself and them. The Petitioner opposes this contention. The Company, under contract with the United States Government, is performing the maintenance and operation functions for the Oak Ridge, Tennessee, town site and military reservation. The Police Department of the town is under the supervision and direction of the chief of police who is solely responsible to the Public Safety Depart- ment of the AEC to whom he submits all departmental reports. The chief of police does not, in any manner, report to the Company. Ap- plicants for the police force are selected 'on a competitive basis accord- iing •to procedures set down by the Public Safety Department 'of the AEC. All matters regarding the discharge, discipline, and promo- tion of_ members of the police force are handled within the Police Department itself, subject to the approval of the Public Safety, De- partment. The Public Safety Department likewise issues all instruc- tions and determines all policy matters concerning the activities of the Oak Ridge police force. These facts, which in our. opinion ,demon-, strate that the AEC exercises complete control over the hire, tenure, and conditions of employment of the members of the Oak Ridge Police Department, are not disputed by the Petitioner. `The Petitioner, however, urges that the Company is the employer of members of the Police Department because it pays them with its own checks and makes necessary social security and withholding de- ductions. With respect to the payment of the Oak Ridge police, the record shows that the AEC determines the.salary schedule and all other matters relating to their pay. The chief of police makes up the payroll based on the employees' work records and submits it to the Public Safety,iDepartment for approval and certification. The Com- pany, without checking or making up work records of its own, pays the amounts so certified. The Company is directly reimbursed for all payroll expenditures and other incidental items of expense incurred with respect to the Police Department. The foregoing shows that the payroll functions of the Company with respect to the Oak Ridge Police Department are merely com- pensable services performed by the Company for the AEC. This conclusion is buttressed by the contract between the Company and the AEC,' as well as by the fact that the Company maintains a ,separate I The pertinent language of this contract , as shown in the record , reads as follows : "b. By way of Illustration , but not limitation , the services to be performed by the Contractor may include the following : (1) Payment of compensation to all persons engaged in the fire , police and general public safety forces, public health and public welfare activities, and other civic activities, including recreation and public library facilities ; procurement and supply services in ROANE,ANDERSON COMPANY 1,503 payroll for the-Police Department and similar personnel . The pay- roll in question is a special mandatory payroll for those employees whom the Company is required'by the AEC to carry on their payroll but over whom the Company has no control whatsoever. The signifi', cance of this fact was recognized by the Board in another. case involv- ing the Company.2 There, the Board stated that: "The record dis- closes that some custodial employees are carried on .a separate manda- tory payroll schedule. They are hired upon the direction of, and at a rate designated by, the AEC. The Employer [Company] has no con- trol over these employees, either in supervision or in tenure of 'em- ployment." The Board therefore excluded the custodial employees carried on the mandatory payroll from a unit of the Company's cus- todial employees. On the basis of the foregoing, therefore, we are of the opinion that the payment of the members of the Police Department does not estab lish the Company as their employer.3 Nor is an employer-employee relationship between the Company and the police a necessary corollary of the fact that the Company is listed as the employer of members of the Police Department on their identification passes and Federal Government drivers' licenses. The decisive elements in establishing. an employer-employee relationship are -complete control over the hire, discharge, discipline, and promotion of employees,-rates of pay, super- vision, and determination of policy matters 4 These elements all re- pose in the AEC. Accordingly, we find that the employees whom the Petitioner seeks to represent are employees of the AEC rather than of the Company. We' shall, therefore, order that the petition herein be dismissed.6 connection with the conduct of such community facilities and services ; and the main-' tenance of the facilities and equipment employed in connection with such services. Except as to procurement , supply and maintenance personnel , the Contractor shall not be responsible for the supervision of the employees in these forces or for the performanee'` of their duties , but they shall be under the direction and supervision of the Commission and their duties shall be prescribed and supervised by the Commission.' " 2 Roane-Anderson Company, 10-RC-1115 , not reported in printed volumes of Board' decisions. 'Illinois Bell Telephone Company, 95 NLRB 913; Montgomery Steel Products Corp., 94 NLRB 225 , and cases cited therein ; see Denton's Inc.; 83 NLRB 35. 4 See footnote 3, supra. 2,In Its brief , the Petitioner cites in support of its contention that the Company is the Employer , the Carbide and Carbon Chemical Corporation, 73 NLRB 134. In that case , the corporation also under contract with the United States Government contended as here in opposition to the petitioner therein, that the employees involved were employees of the Government rather than of the corporation . The Board in sustaining the petitioner in that case found that the corporation exercised considerable control over the employees In that it hired them, determined their rate of pay and working conditions , and discharged them or in certain instances effectively recommended such action ; such facts are clearly distinguishable from those in the instant proceeding where the record shows that the AEC and not the Company exercises the afore -mentioned prerogatives. In the other cases relied on by the Petitioner in its brief , the identity of the employer was not in issue. 1504 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Order Upon the basis of the entire record in this ease, we hereby order that the petition filed in the instant matter be, and it is hereby, dismissed. FOREMAN & CLARK, INC. and LOCAL 297, AMALGAMATED CLOTHING WORKERS OF AMERICA , CIO, PETITIONER . Case No. 21-RC-1836. August 31,1951 Decision and Order Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Arthur Hailey, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b)- of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Members Houston, Reynolds, and Murdock]. 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 employees of the Employer. 3. The alleged question concerning representation : The Petitioner seeks a unit composed of all tailor shop employees including tailors, bushelmen-fitters, finishers, operators, rippers, and pressers,' working at the Employer's nine retail stores in southern California 2 Although the Employer agrees with the geographic scope of the proposed'unit; it contends that an over-all unit including salesmen and will-call boys, in addition to those employees sought by the Petitioner, is the only appropriate unit. Separate units among employees of department or retail clothing stores are appropriate only when comprised of craft or professional employees, or where departments having a craft nucleus or composed of employees performing distinctive functions are involved.3 We have held that a group of alteration shop employees varying widely in skill, similar to those herein involved, are not entitled to separate repre- sentation on a craft basis 4 It is clear that the Employer's alteration shop employees are not professional employees. The only remaining reason for finding that these employees constitute a separate appro- t The Employer sells both men's and women ' s apparel at some of its stores and the Petitioner desires to represent all employees involved in the alteration of men's or women's garments. 2 These nine retail stores are located in Los Angeles, Long Beach, Hollywood , Hunting- -.ton Park, San Diego, Pomona, Burbank, and San Bernardino. 8 See Grossman Department Store, Inc., 90 NLRB No. 275. 4 Robertson Brothers Department Store, Inc ., 95 NLRB 271. 95 NLRB No. 198. Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation