The Northern Trust Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 18, 1946

69 N.L.R.B. 652 (N.L.R.B. 1946)

In the Matter of THE NORTHERN TRUST COMPANY and PROTECTIVE
SERVICE EMPLOYEES OF CHICAGO, LOCAL No. 240, BUILDING SERVICE
EMPLOYEES' INTERNATIONAL UNION, A. F. L.
Case No. 13-R-2112-Decided July 18, 1946
Scott, MacLeish cfi Falk, by Messrs. John E. MacLeish, Harold D.
Burgess, and Leland K. Neeves, of Chicago, Ill., for the Company.
Mr. Daniel D. Carmell, by Mr. Leo Segall, and Messrs. John W.
Arnett and David Dolnick, of Chicago, Ill., for the Union.
Mr. Elmer P. Freischlag, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a petition duly filed by Protective Service Employees of
Chicago, Local No. 240, Building Service Employees' International
Union, A. F. L., herein called the Union, alleging that a question
affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation of em-
ployees of The Northern Trust Company, Chicago, Illinois, herein
called the Company, the National Labor Relations Board provided
for an appropriate hearing upon due notice before Robert R. Rissman,
Trial Examiner. The hearing was held at Chicago, Illinois, on Feb-
ruary 17, 1944, and April 29, 1946.1 The Company and the Union
appeared and participated. All parties were afforded full opportu-
nity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to intro-
duce evidence bearing on the issues. At the hearing, the Company in
effect moved to dismiss the petition on the following grounds: (1)
that it was not subject to the jurisdiction of the Board; (2) that no
question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation
of its employees; and (3) that the unit petitioned for was inappropri-
ate. The motion was referred to the Board. For reasons stated here-
inafter the motion is hereby denied. The Trial Examiner's rulings
made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby
affirmed. The Company's request for oral argument is hereby denied.
All parties were afforded opportunity to file briefs with the Board.
1 The intervening period between the two dates of hearing resulted from court proceed-
ings initiated by the Board to enforce subpenas served upon the Company and certain of
its officers.
69 N. L. R. B., No. 82.
652
THE NORTHERN TRUST COMPANY 653
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
The Northern Trust Company, an Illinois corporation with its
place of business located in Chicago, Illinois, conducts a general bank-
ing business . The Company is a member of the Federal Reserve Sys-
tem, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. It ranks 21st
or 22nd in size in the United States, and is the third largest bank in
Chicago. As of March 30, 1946, its total assets exceeded $646,000,000,
of which $370,000,000 represented United States Government securi-
ties, and $41,600,000 were municipal bonds. As of the same date, loans
and discounts outstanding were valued at more than $68,000,000; and
deposits exceeded $611,000,000.
During the first 3 months of 1946, transit items forwarded to banks
outside the State of Illinois numbered 1,338,916 and aggregated $465,-
000,000 letters of credit and travelers' checks issued by the Company
numbered 789 and amounted to $773,443; and its foreign exchange
business totaled approximately $1,500,000 in debits and the same
amount in credits. During the same period, the Company maintained
deposit accounts in 27 banks located in 11 other States and the Dis-
trict of Columbia.
. The Company contends that it is not subject to the jurisdiction of
the Board, in that (1) the record fails to indicate any particular
interstate commerce which is affected by its operations, and further
fails to show that the employees involved herein, in their local activi-
ties as guards, affect inrstate commerce within the meaning of the
Act; and (2) as a State bank it is subject only to such Federal control
as may be exercised to regulate the public finance, and the Federal
Government cannot directly control its internal policies with respect
to its employer-employee relations. The contention is without merit.
It is clear from the foregoing facts that the Company conducts
extensive business transactions throughout the United States, and
that its operations, as such, affect the stream of commerce between the
States.2 It is also well established that a specific determination that
the duties of particular employees sought to be represented affect
interstate commerce is not a prerequisite to the assertion of jurisdic-
tion by the Board.3 Nor is the fact that the employer is a State bank
functioning under a State charter controlling where, as here, the
operations involved are to a substantial degree interstate in character.
2 See Matter of Bankers Trust Company , 56 N. L . R. B. 1071, and cases cited therein.
3 Matter of City National Bank and Trust Company, 50 N. L. R. B. 516, citing Virginia
Electric & Power Company v. N. L. R. B., 314 U. S. 469.
654 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
We find, therefore, contrary to the contention of the Company, that
its operations affect commerce within the meaning of the National
Labor Relations Act.
H. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Protective Service Employees of Chicago, Local No. 240, is a labor
organization affiliated with Building Service Employees' Interna-
tional Union which, in turn, is affiliated with the American Federation
of Labor, admitting to membership employees of the Company.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Company 'hits refused to grant recognition to the Union as the
exclusive bargaining representative of any of its employees.
A statement of a Board agent, introduced into evidence at the hear-
ing, indicates that the Union represents a substantial number of
employees in the unit hereinafter found appropriate.4
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. TILE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The Union seeks a unit of all police officers or day police of the
Company, excluding night watchmen, special service officers, mes-
sengers, and supervisory employees. The Company maintains that
these employees may not constitute any appropriate unit, but that,
4 The Field Examiner reported on January 28, 1944, that the Union submitted 11
authorization cards ; that , of these cards , 1 was dated in November 1942 , 6 were dated in
December 1942 , and 4 were undated : and that the Company declined to submit a list of
employees in the unit. There were 13 employees in the unit petitioned for, and there are
approximately 21 employees in the unit hereinafter found appropriate.
The Union filed its petition with the Board on October 19, 1943. Through no fault of
the Union, and as a result of court proceedings initiated by the Board to enforce suhpenas
served upon the Company and certain of its officers , the hearing in this case which began
on February 17, 1944 , was continued indefinitely and was not reconvened until April 29,
1946. As a result of turnover in the interim in Company personnel, only 6 of the
original 13 in the unit were still in the Company's employ on April 29, 1946. At the
hearing on February 17, 1944 , the Trial Examiner admitted , over the Company's objection,
the Field Examiner's "Report of Investigation of Interest of Contending Labor Organiza-
tions," and at the reconvened hearing the Trial Examiner rejected the C ompany 's offer of
proof to the effect that at a recent meeting of the Company's police officers those present
had decided that they did not want the Union to represent them. The Company questions
the correctness of the Trial Examiner ' s rulings and attacks the sufficiency of the Union's
showing , contending, in effect, that in these circumstances a current showing of repre-
sentation should have been made , and the failure of the Union to do so calls for a dismissal
of the petition . We do not agree . The purpose of the preliminary showing of cards and
of the Field Examiner ' s statement has been frequently set forth in our decisions. See
Matter of Lalance & Grosjean Manufacturing Co., 63 N. L. R. B. 130 ; Matter of Tampa
Shipbuilding Company , 62 N. L . R. B. 954; Matter of H. G. Hill Stores, Inc., 39 N . L. R. B.
874. Applying the principles enunciated in these cases, we conclude that the Trial
Examiner ' s rulings were proper and that the showing satisfies the Board ' s requirements.
THE NORTHERN TRUST COMPANY 655
if overruled on this position, the Board must find appropriate a unit
consisting of all the above enumerated categories of employees, with,
the possible exception of the messengers, together with the vault
guards employed by its subsidiary, The Northern Trust Safe Deposit
Company.5
In support of its primary contention that the benefits of the Act
should be denied to the employees sought herein, the Company argues-
that, inasmuch as the police officers are deputized as special police
officers of the City of Chicago, their obligations to the public are in
compatible with their obligations to the Union in the event of indus-
trial unrest or*strife, and the public interest therefore requires that
they should not be allowed to form any appropriate unit. Similar
arguments have been advanced in many previous cases, and we have
held, as we do now, that they are lacking in merits Accordingly,.
we shall proceed to a determination of the unit issue.
Night Watchmen and Special Service Ofcers: The Company now
employs, in some policing capacity, 11 police officers, 5 night watch-
men, and 5 special service officers. All are uniformed, are armed or
have access to arms, and are deputized as special policemen by the
City of Chicago. All these employees are under the supervision of
both a Chief and a Captain of Police, and are part of the Building.
Department of the Company, which is under the Comptroller's Divi-
sion. The police officers are stationed on the main floor of the Com-
pany's premises during banking hours, and their duties consist of
protecting the premises and securities therein, and of directing cus-
tomers to the location of the various facilities of the Company. Their
duties are performed wholly within the building. The night watch-
men perform their duties after banking hours, and they make regular
rounds of the premises, during which they punch clocks. One of the
night watchmen is stationed at the rear entrance in order to admit
authorized persons to the building. The special service employees are
classified by the Company as police, and they are stationed on floors of
the building other than the main floor. In addition to the protection
duties they necessarily perform, they have contact with and render
services to the public visiting the floors on which they are posted.
They also have the function of rendering some personal services to
executive officers of the Company, such as the running of errands for
them.
Although the employees in these classifications are not interchanged,
it is apparent from the foregoing facts that all of them have similar
' The Company contends that this unit corresponds to that found appropriate by the
Board in Matter of City National Bank and Trust Company , supra . In that case, the
petitioning union sought , and the Board found appropriate , a single unit of day police,
night force , and deputies of the bank , and vault attendants of the wholly owned subsidiary
corporation.
6 See Matter of Wilson & Co ., Inc., 67 N . L. R. B. 662 ; Matter of Armour and Company,.
63 N. L. it. B. 1200; Matter of Aluminum Company of America, 63 N. L. R. B, 828,
656 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
interests and duties. We shall, therefore, include the night watchmen
and the special service officers in the same unit with the police officers.
Messengers: The Company employs 36 messengers, 28 of whom are
deputized and have the right to carry arms. These employees are not
uniformed and, unlike the employees described above who are uni-
formed and form part of the Building Department, are under the
immediate supervision of the manager of the Mail and Messenger
Division attached to the Operating Department of the Company.
Their primary functions are unrelated to police work; they open and
distribute incoming mail, carry outgoing mail to the post office, and
in general perform duties of a clerical nature. Whip they may be
called upon to carry securities and cash to places within the City of
Chicago, and to provide protection to customers off the Company's
premises, they have performed such tasks only occasionally in the
past, and it would appear that the Company considers them to be pri-
marily clerical employees.
Under ,all the circumstances and on the basis of the entire record,
we are persuaded that the interests of the messengers are more closely
allied with the Company's clerical employees than with the police
officers. We shall, accordingly, exclude them from the unit.7
Vault Guards: The Northern Trust Safe Deposit Company, a sepa-
rate corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of the Company, is
engaged solely in the business of operating the safe deposit vaults in
the basement of the Company's premises.,, The president and vice
president of the subsidiary are officers of the Company, and the sub-
sidiary is regarded as a department of the Company subject to the
ultimate supervision of the Company's Comptroller. The employees
of both companies, also enjoy the same employee benefits and privi-
leges. However, the subsidiary operates, in many respects, as a sepa-
rate entity. Thus, its operations are under the immediate supervision
of a manager, its 13 deputized guards wear uniforms which are dif-
ferent in appearance from those worn by the uniformed employees
mentioned above, and no employee interchange occurs between the
vault guards and the employees of the Company. Moreover, the
Union does not seek to represent the vault guards and has made no
attempt to organize them. Accordingly, on the entire record and
under the circumstances of the case detailed above, we perceive no
present basis for including the vault guards in the unit.'
We therefore find that all police officers, night watchmen, and spe-
cial service officers of the Company, excluding vault guards of The
Northern Trust Safe Deposit Company, messengers, and all super-
Cf. Matter of Bankers Trust Company, supra; Matter of City National Bank and Trust
,Company, supra.
The Northern Trust Safe Deposit Company is not a party to this proceeding.
9 See Matter of The Vanta Company, 66 N. L. R. B. 912 ; Matter of Wallington Tube
,Corporation, 57 N. L. R. B. 763.
THE NORTHERN TRUST COMPANY 657
visory employees 10 with authority to hire, promote, discharge, dis-
cipline, 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
We shall direct that the question concerning representation which
has arisen be resolved by an election by secret ballot among employees
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 Direction.
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 The Northern
Trust Company, Chicago, Illinois, 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 Regulations, among em-
ployees 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 Protective
Service Employees of Chicago, Local No. 240, Building Service Em-
ployees' International Union, A. F. L., for the purposes of collective
bargaining.
10 This includes both the Chief and the Captain of Police who exercise, as established by
the record, supervisory authority within our usual definition of the term.
11 This unit is larger than the one sought by the Union. The Company contends, in this
connection, that the Board must find that no question concerning representation has arisen
because no claim has been made which would give rise to any such question in the larger
unit. We find no merit in this contention. It is sufficient in such a situation that the
basic character of the requested unit remains unchanged, and the substantial showing is
not materially impaired by the expansion of the unit. See Matter of The Lamson Brothers
Company, 59 N. L. R. B. 1561.
701592-47-vol. 69-43