Seeger-Sunbeam Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 29, 1946

69 N.L.R.B. 985 (N.L.R.B. 1946)

In the Matter of SEEGER-SUNBEAM CORPORATION, EVANSVILLE DIVI-
SION, EMPLOYER and UNITED ELECTRICAL, RADIO & MACHINE
WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER
Case No. 11-R-993.-Decided July 29, 1946
Mr. James 7'. Nielsen, of Chicago, Ill., and Mr. A. E. Apple, of
Evansville , Ind., for the Company.
Mr. James Payne, of Evansville, Ind., and Mr. David Scribner, of
New York City, for the Petitioner.
Mr. John H. Wood, Jr., of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at Evans-
ville, Indiana, on June 5, 1946, before Arthur R. Donovan, Trial
Examiner. The Trial Examiner's rulings made at the hearing are
free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. At the hearing,
the Company moved to dismiss the petition. The Trial Examiner
referred this motion to the Board. For reasons stated below, the Com-
pany's motion is hereby denied.
Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations
Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
Seeger-Sunbeam Corporation, Evansville Division, a Minnesota cor-
poration, is engaged in the manufacture of refrigerators at its Evans-
ville, Indiana, plant, which is solely involved in this proceeding. Dur-
ing a recent period, the Employer purchased raw materials valued at
$500,000, of which a substantial amount represented shipments to the
Evansville plant from points outside the State of Indiana. During
the same period a substantial portion of the Employer's finished prod-
ucts, valued at more than $1,000,000, was shipped to points outside
the State.
69 N. L. R. B., No. 121.
985
986 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Employer admits, for the purposes of this proceeding, and we
find, that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Petitioner is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress
of Industrial Organizations claiming to represent employees of the
Employer.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Employer refuses to recognize the Petitioner as the exclusive
bargaining representative of employees of the Employefr until the
Petitioner has been certified by the Board in an appropriate unit.
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning
the representation of employees of the Employer, within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The Petitioner seeks to represent all plant guards and watchmen
at the Employer's Evansville, Indiana, plant, excluding employees
in these classifications with the rank of sergeant or higher, and requests
that, if the Board directs an election and the Petitioner wins, the plant
guards and watchmen be merged into the existing production and
maintenance unit which the Petitioner presently represents. The Em-
ployer, while conceding that a unit of these employees is appropriate,
takes the position, also asserted in its motion to dismiss, that the same
union which represents production and maintenance employees may
not represent the plant-protection employees either in a separate unit
or as part of the production and maintenance unit.
The Employer's plant-protection department consists of 14 guards
and 6 watchmen, all of whom are under the supervision of the sergeant
of the guards who heads the department. Although watchmen earn
less than guards, the duties of the guards and some of the watchmen
are substantially the same and include protecting the Employer's prop-
erty against fire and theft, reporting infractions of the Employer's
rules by production and maintenance employees, and checking em-
ployees into and out of the plant at the beginning and end of the work
day. The duties of the remaining watchmen are limited to making
the rounds of the warehouses and they possess the same responsibility
as the other watchmen and guards in doing this work. Only the first-
mentioned group of guards and watchmen are uniformed. However,
all plant-protection employees are armed; and all are deputized special
police officers of the city of Evansville, and wear badges bearing such
a legend.
SEEGER-SUNBEAM CORPORATION 987
It is apparent from the foregoing that these deputized employees
have, in addition to their custodial functions, a substantial number of
monitorial duties in relation to other employees. Accordingly, in view
of our usual policy of not including plant-protection personnel who are
deputized and have monitorial functions in the same unit with produc-
tion and maintenance employees, we shall reject the Petitioner's re-
quest that the plant-protection employees be permitted to merge with
the production and maintenance employees, but shall instead establish
a separate unit of these employees.
As noted above, the Employer contends that the same union which
represents the production and maintenance employees is incompetent
to represent its plant-protection personnel. In support of this posi-
tion the Employer argues that inasmuch as these plant-protection em-
ployees are deputized special policemen of the municipality of Evans-
ville their obligations to the municipality would be incompatible with
their obligations to the Petitioner in the event of industrial unrest
and breaches of the peace on the part of the production and mainte-
nance employees, and would result in a detriment to the public in-
terest. We have in other cases I considered similar contentions with
respect to employees having the same duties and functions as these
guards and watchmen, and, as in those cases, find them tobe without
merit.2 In those cases where a union seeking to represent plant-pro-
tection personnel, who are deputized and have monitorial functions,
also represents other employees of the same Employer, we have re-
quired only that the plant-protection personnel be represented in a
separate bargaining unit in their contractual relations with their Em-
ployer, and in their day-to-day activities.3
Accordingly, substantially in accordance with the agreement of the
parties, we find that all plant guards and watchmen, excluding those
with the rank of sergeant or higher, and all or any other supervisory
employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or
otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or effectively recom-
mend such action, 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 Seeger-Sunbeam Corporation,
Evansville Division, Evansville, Indiana, an election by secret ballot
shall be conducted not later than thirty (30) days from the date of
Matter of Solar Mfg . Co., 65 N. L. R. B . 1366, and cases cited therein.
2 We note in this connection that the Employer relies heavily on N. L . R. B. v. Jones f
Laughlin Steel Corporation , 154 F. ( 2d) 932 ( C. C. A. 6, April 4 , 1946), 17 L. R . R. 1270,
to support its contention . However, the Board does not acquiesce in that decision, and
has filed a petition for certiorari in the Supreme Court.
3 Matter of Cudahy Packing Company, 65 N. L. It. B . 10, and 65 N . L. It. B. 1193.
988 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
this Direction, under the direction and supervision of the Regional
Director for the Eleventh Region, acting in this matter as agent for
the National Labor Relations Broad, and subject to Article III, Sec-
tions 10 and 11, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regu-
lations-Series 3, as amended, 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 employ-
ees 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 Electrical,
Radio & Machine Workers of America, CIO, for the purposes of
collective bargaining.
MR. JOHN M. HouSTON took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Direction of Election.