The Trailmobile Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 25, 1947

72 N.L.R.B. 1349 (N.L.R.B. 1947)

In the Matter of THE TRAILMOBILE COMPANY, EMPLOYER and INTER-
NATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT & AGRICULTURAL
IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA (UAW-CIO), PETITIONER
Case No. 9-R-2394.Decided March 25, 1911.7
Mr. Philip J. Schneider, of Cincinnati, Ohio, for the Employer.
Mr. Lewis G. Strickland, of Cincinnati, Ohio, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Leonard J. Mandl, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at Cincin-
nati, Ohio, on November 7, 1946, before Louis S. Penfield, hearing
officer. The hearing officer'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
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
The Trailmobile Company,' an Ohio corporation with its principal
office and plant in Cincinnati, Ohio, is engaged in the manufacture of
truck trailers. It employs at this office and plant more than 1,000 per-
sons. The principal raw material used is steel, over 50 percent of
which is shipped to the plant from points outside the State of Ohio.
During 1942, the Employer sold trailers valued at more than $500,000.
Since 1942, the Employer has increased its production. More than
50 percent of its current sales represent shipments to points outside
the State.
We find that the Employer is engaged in commerce within the mean-
ing of the National Labor Relations Act 2
' The name of the Employer i as changed in 1944 from the Trailer Company of America
to The Trailmobile Company
2 See Matter of The Trailer Company o f America, 51 N. L it. B 1106.
72 N L R B., No 244.
1349
1350 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
II. TILE 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 has refused to recognize the. Petitioner as the bar-
gaining representative of its guards contending that the Petitioner,
the bargaining representative of the production and maintenance
employees, has contracted not to represent the guards.,.
On December 8, 1943, the Petitioner was certified by the Board as
the bargaining representative of the production and maintenance
employees.4 On September 5, 1946, the Petitioner and the Employer
entered into a collective bargaining contract which states, inter alia,
that Petitioner is:
the exclusive bargaining agent for all [the Employer's]
production and maintenance employees, excluding * *
guards
and
that it will not for any purpose represent anyone in a
supervisory capacity such as superintendents, general foremen,
assistant general foremen, foremen or assistant foremen, or
other supervisors, or other representatives of manage-
ment
Neither of the above clauses constitutes an undertaking by the
Petitioner that it will not seek to represent guards. The exclusion
of the guards from the coverage clause merely means that guards
are outside the scope of the collective bargaining agreement. It does
not mean that the Petitioner has undertaken not to represent the
guards in some other appropriate unit.° The promise not to repre-
sent supervisors or other representatives of management does not
pertain to guards who are monitorial employees but neither super-
visors nor representatives of management in the sense of this clause.6
We therefore 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.'
3 See Matter of Bi igys Indiana Corp o,ation , 63 N L R B 1270.
4 The Petitioner was certified by the Board after an election pursuant , to Decision and
Direction , Matter of The Trailer Company of America, 53 N L R B 1248
Matter of Jones C Laughlin Steel Corporation, 66 N L R B 336, Matter of Florence
Stole Company , 67 N. L R B 146 , Matter of The American Brass Company, 66
N L R B 1199
6 Matter of Drava Coi poration, 52 N L R B 222 , Matter of Cudahy Packing Company,
65 N L. R B 10 and 1193, platter of Ilygiade Food Products Company, 69 N L R 13 235
7 The Employer 's motion "to dismiss the hearing" is denied for the seasons stated above.
THE TRAILMOBILE COMPANY
IV. TIIE APPROPRIATE UNIT
1351
The Petitioner seeks a unit of all guards at the Employer's Cin-
cinnati, Ohio, plant, including corporals, but excluding the sergeant
and chief guard. The Employer contends that (1) guards may not
constitute an appropriate unit, and (2) corporals, sergeant, and chief
guard should be excluded as supervisors.
The guards are uniformed, armed, and deputized.8 Their duties
include patrolling the plant and adjacent parking lot, inspecting
badges of incoming and outgoing employees at plant gates, examin-
ing packages and lunch containers for firearms and company prop-
erty, filling out and signing one section of bills of lading on trailers
shipped from the plant," and checking on the fire protection system.
When a guard finds an employee violating a plant rule, he reports the
incident to the chief guard who communicates with the employee's
foreman who, in turn, takes whatever disciplinary action he deems
advisable and reports such action to the chief guard. The guards are
paid on a salary basis, whereas the production and maintenance em-
ployees are hourly paid. It is apparent from the foregoing that the
guards possess substantial monitorial functions. However, we have
always held, as we do here, that such guards are employees within
the meaning of the Act, and may constitute a separate appropriate
unit.'°
Corporals of the guard: The nine guards are under the supervision
of the chief guard and sergeant of the guard, who are admittedly
supervisory employees. The three corporals of the guard transmit
orders from the chief and sergeant to the guards, but it does not appear
that corporals have authority to effect changes in the status of the
guards or effectively recommend such action. We find, therefore, that
the corporals are not supervisors within our customary definition."
We shall include them.
Accordingly, we find that all plant guards of the Employer, includ-
ing corporals, but excluding sergeant, chief guard, and all other super-
visory employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge, disci-
pline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or effec-
tively recommend such action, constitute a unit appropriate for the
purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b)
of the Act.
° Guards residing within the city of Cincinnati have signed applications to be deputized
as "private police " In addition , all guards have been deputized by the Sheriff of Hamilton
Count, Ohio
°W\'here a driver seeks to pass out of a gate with a trailer for which he does not have
proper papers, the guard stops the driver and instructs him to return to the plant for the
proper papers
'w Matter of Dravo Cor poi ation, 52 N L R B 322 ; Mattei of News Syndicate Co., Inc.,
67 N L R B 1178; Matter of The Northern Trust Company , 69 N L R B 652
11 See Matter of Bethlehem -Fairfield Shipyards, Inc, 61 N L R B 901, 906.
1352 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the
purposes of collective bargaining with The Trailmobile Company,
Cincinnati, Ohio, 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 Ninth Region, acting in this matter as agent for the
National Labor Relations Board, and subject to Sections 203.55 and
203.56, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-
Series 4, among the employees in the unit found appropriate in Sec-
tion IV, aboye, who were employed during the pay-roll period imme-
diately 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 International Union, United Automobile,
Aircraft & Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW-
CIO), for the purposes of collective bargaining.
MR. JAMES J. REYNOLDS, JR., dissenting : -
For the reasons stated in my dissenting opinion in the Monsanto
Chemical Company case,12 which I find equally applicable here, I
would dismiss the present petition.
12 71 N L R. B. 11.