The Electric Auto-Lite Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 22, 1946

71 N.L.R.B. 747 (N.L.R.B. 1946)

In the Matter of THE ELECTRIC AUio-LITE COMPANY, SPARK PLUG
DIvIsIoN , EMPLOYER and INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED Au'ro io-
BILE, AIRCRAFT & AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA,
LOCAL 533 ( CIO), PETITIONER
Case No. 8-R-2354.Decided November P-9,1946
Mr. James P. Falvey, of Toledo, Ohio, for the Employer.
Mr. Ralph Brown, of Toledo, Ohio, and Mr. Robert Chapman, of
Fostoria, Ohio, for the Petitioner.
Dlr. Conrad A. Wickham, Jr., of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
Upon a petition duly filed', the National Labor Relations Board on
October 1, 1946, conducted a prehearing election among the employees
of the Employer in the alleged appropriate unit, to determine whether
or not they desired to be represented by Petitioner for the purposes
of collective bargaining.
At the close of the election a Tally of Ballots was furnished the'
parties. The Tally shows that all 6 eligible voters cast ballots for
Petitioner.
Thereafter, a hearing was held at Fostoria, Ohio, on October 16,
1946, before Thomas E. Shroyer, hearing officer. The hearing offi-
cer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and
are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations
Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF TilE EMPLOYER
The Electric Auto-Lite Company, Spark Plug Division, an Ohio
corporation, is engaged at its plant in Fostoria, Ohio, in the manu-
facture of spark plugs. Of its annual consumption of raw materials,
valued in excess of $1,000,000, the majority represents shipments
from points outside the State of Ohio. Of its finished products,
valued in excess of $5,000,000, the majority represents "shipments to
points outside the State.
71 N L R B., No. 126
747
748 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Employer admits and we find that it is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATIO N 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 Petitioner as the exclusive bar-
gaining representative of its plant guards at Fostoria, Ohio, contend-
ing that these employees may not be represented by Petitioner because
it already represents the Employer's production and maintenance
employees.' Recently, in the Monsanto Chemical Company case,2 a
majority of the Board reaffirmed prior unanimous holdings 8 that the
benefits of the Act should not be denied to guards where they seek to
be represented for collective bargaining purposes by the same labor
organization which represents the employees over whom their mon t-
torial function is exercised, as is the case here.4
Accordingly, 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. TILE APPROPRIATE UNIT
Petitioner seeks to include the Employer's plant-protection force
of six guards in the existing unit of production and maintenance
employees, which it already represents, or, in the alternative, to rep-
resent them as a separate unit. The Employer, without waiving its
contention as to the competency of Petitioner to represent these em-
ployees, argues that only a separate unit is appropriate.
The Employer's guards are under the supervision of the captain
of the guards, concededly a supervisor, and perform the customary
duties of personnel engaged in this type of work., In conjunction
with their duties, they are clothed with authority to prevent violations
of company rules by its employees, and to employ reasonable force to
enforce these rules.
It is apparent from the foregoing and the entire record in the case
that these employees possess substantial monitorial duties with rela-
I Petitioner is as certified as the bargaining reps esentative for the Employer's production
and maintenance employees on Febiuarv 28, 1944, as the result of an election following
the Board c Decision and Direction of Election in Matter of The Electric Anto-Lite Com-
pany (Spa) k Plug Division), 54 N L R B 840
2 71 N L R B 11
3 Matter of Seeger -Sunbeam Coo poration , Evansville Division, 69 N. L R. B 985 ; Matter
of Drav,o Corporation, 52 N L R. B 322
_4 The Emplovei has cited AT L R B v Jones it Laughlin Steel Corporation, 154 F. (2d)
932 (C C A 6), in support of its contention However, the Board does not acquiesce in
that decision, and has filed a petition for certiorari in the Supreme Court.
THE ELECTRIC AUTO-LITE COMPANY 749
tion to other employees of the Employer. Accordingly, in view of
our usual policy of not including plant-protection personnel who
have monitorial functions in the same unit with production and main-
tenance employees, we shall reject Petitioner's request that the Em-
plover's plant guards be permitted to merge with the production and
maintenance employees, but shall instead establish them in a separate
unit.°
We find that all plant guards of the Employer at its plant in Fos-
toria, Ohio, excluding the captain of guards and all other supervisory
employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or
otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or effectively
recommend 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
The results of the election held before the hearing show that Peti-
tioner has received all the votes cast. Under these circumstances Ave
shall certify Petitioner as the collective bargaining representative of
the employees in the appropriate unit.
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
IT IS 1-IERELY cERTIFi.ED that International Union, United Automo-
bile, Aircraft & Agricultural Implement Workers of America, Local
533, C. I. 0., has been designated and selected by a majority of all
plant. guards of The Electric Auto-Lite Company, Spark Plug Divi-
sion, Fostoria, Ohio, excluding the captain of the guards, and all
supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge,
discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or
effectively recommend such action, as their representative for pur-
poses of collective bargaining, and that, pursuant to Section 9 (a) of
the Act, the said organization is the exclusive representative of all
such employees for the purposes of collective bargaining with respect
to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions
of employment.
Mn. JAMES J. REYNOLDS, JR., dissenting:
For the reasons stated in luny dissenting opinion in the Monsanto
Chemical Company case,s which I find equally applicable here, I would
dismiss the present petition.
5 Matter of Seeger -Sunbeam Corporation, Evansville Division , 69 N L R B 985
In view of the above, we do not consider as significant Petitioner ' s argument in support
of its primary position that the guards at the Employer' s Toledo plant have been included
in the production and maintenance unit apparently in accordance with an agreement be-
tween the Employer and an affiliate of Petitioner
6 71 N L R B 11.