Westinghouse Electric Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 1, 1951

96 N.L.R.B. 1250 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

1250 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ' BOARD
department includes 8 or 9 other employees who do shop clerical work
and whom the Petitioner does not seek to represent .4
Accordingly, we find that the proposed unit is inappropriate for
collective bargaining purposes, and we shall, therefore, dismiss the
petition.
Order
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition herein be, and it hereby' is,
dismissed.
Montgomery Ward & Company , Incorporated, 88 NLRB 615.
WESTINgHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION ( LIMA, OHIO, PLANT) and AS-
SOCIATION OF LIMA WESTINGHOUSE POLICE, PETITIONER . Case No.
8-RC-1359. November 1, 1951
Decision and Direction of Election
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held on September 6, 1951, before Philip
Fusco, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hear-
ing 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-mem-
ber panel [Members Houston, Murdock, and Styles].
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 hearing officer referred to the Board the Employer's motion
to dismiss the instant proceeding on the following grounds: (1) The
Petitioner is not a labor organization as defined in the Act and has no
constitution or bylaws in the absence of which it cannot 'be- deter-
mined whether the Petitioner admits employees other than guards,
and (2) the members' df the Petitioner are still members of IUE-CIO
Local 724 which sponsored and aided the Petitioner. The record
discloses that the Petitioner's membership is restricted exclusively to
guards and exists for the purpose of dealing with the Employer on
matters relating to wages, hours, and working conditions. It is also
clear that despite the use of the hall of IUE-CIO Local 724 and the aid
of its chief steward at the Petitioner's organizational meeting, the
Petitioner, which does not report to the IUE and does not pay dues
i The Lima Westinghouse Salaried Employees Association, the contractual representative .
of the salaried employees, at the Lima plant , was permitted to intervene for the purpose
of stating its position with regard to the categol y of policeman -receptionist discussed on fra.
96 NLRB No. 194.
WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION 1251
to or receive financial assistance from that organization, has no con-
nection therewith and is free to formulate its own policies and decide
its own course of action. Accordingly, we find that, although the
IUE furnished assistance to the Petitioner during its organizational
stage, the Petitioner is a labor organization 2 confining its member-
ship to guards and is neither directly nor indirectly affiliated with
any other organization.3 The Employer's motion to dismiss is hereby
denied.
The Intervenor is a labor organization claiming to represent cer-
tain employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9
(c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Petitioner seeks a single unit of policemen employed at the
Employer's Lima and Buckeye plants in Lima, Ohio, excluding the
policeman-receptionist, professional employees, captains, lieutenants,
sergeants, and all other supervisors as defined in the Act. The Em-
ployer agrees as to the composition of the unit but contends that the
unit should be limited to the Lima plant, because there is no "cohesion"
between its activities and those of the newly acquired Buckeye plant .4
The policemen at both establishments, all of whom are deputized
and uniformed, have as their basic responsibility the protection of
their plants which they patrol for the purpose of guarding against
the entrance of unauthorized persons. It is clear, and we find, that
the policemen at both plants are guards within the meaning of Sec-
tion 9 (b) (3) of the Act as amended'
A captain of the guards is in charge of the policemen at the Lima
and Buckeye plants which are located within 6 miles of each other.
When the Buckeye plant was acquired in 1950,6 the policemen for
that plant were trained at the Lima plant. During the vacation
period there are temporary assignments from one plant to the other.
Similarly, there is an interchange of plant-protection employees as
a result of absence caused by illness.' The pay scale and other con-
ditions of employment are the same for both plants. Until the mid-
2 DeMay's Inc., 81 NLRB 1374.
' Westinghouse Electric Corp ., 96 NLRB 316; Brooklyn Piers, Inc., 88 NLRB 1364;
International Harvester Company , 81 NLRB 374. Cf. Wilcox Construction Company, Inc.,
87 NLRB 371.
4 Although there are guards in two other branches of the Employer , which are respectively
35 and 80 miles from Lima, they are not discussed here, as the parties agree on their
exclusion from the unit , and it does not appear from the record that their interests are
substantially related to those of the plant -protection employees at the Lima and Buckeye
plants.
5 Westinghouse Electric Company , 87 NLRB 345; Chrysler Corporation, 79 NLRB 462.
6 It is expected that this plant, which is now being used for storage purposes , will 'go
into production 2 or 3 months from the date of the hearing.
7 However, the Employer asserts that it plans to discontinue this practice in the future.
1252 DECISIONS' OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
idle of 1950, UE Local 724 represented the Lima plant policemen-who
have not been represented since that time.a
In view of the proximity of- the two plants involved herein, the
common supervision of the policemen, and their uniform working
conditions, we find that the two-plant unit requested by the Petitioner
is appropriate .9
There remains for consideration the question whether the police-
man-receptionist should be excluded as stipulated by the Employer
and Petitioner. The Employer in December 1950 supplanted the fe-
male receptionist in the office of the Lima plant With a policeman-
receptionist for the duration of the present emergency. The police-
man-receptionist, who is not deputized, wears a u)liforln and has the
same authority as the other policemen except that he has no traffic
duty. In carrying out his function of preventing the entrance of any
unauthorized persons, he registers visitors, questions them as to their
identity, checks their citizenship credentials,-and detains suspicious
persons. He is under the same supervision as the other policemen,
receives the same rate of pay, and benefits, shares their locker room,
and is relieved by them during his lunch hour and rest periods. The
Intervenor, which represented the female receptionist as part of the
office and clerical unit at the Lima plant, does not claim to represent
the policeman-receptionist. We find that the policeman-receptionist
is a guard.10 As his interests are closely allied to those of the other
policemen, and he would otherwise go unrepresented, we shall, con-
trary to the agreement of the parties, include the policeman-reception-
ist in the unit.
,Accordingly, we find that all policemen employed at the Employer's
Lima and Buckeye plants in Lima, Ohio, including the policeman-
receptionist, but excluding professional employees, captains, lieuten-
ants, sergeants, and all, other supervisors as defined in the Act, con-
stitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in -this
volume.]
The production and maintenance employees at the Lima plant also have a history of
bargaining on a one-plant basis . Westinghouse Electric Corporation,' 89 NLRB 8, 17,
and cases cited therein.
"Emerson Television Service Corporation , 88 NLRB 55 ; Westinghouse, 87 NLRB 203 ;
Chrysler Corporation, supra
' 'Because the Buckeye plant has' been ' used for only about a year, we believe that the
bargaining history prior to that date for the Lima plant alone does not militate against
our multiplant finding Glass Fibers, Inc., 93 NLRB 1289. Cf. Joseph E. Seagram 4
Sons, Inc , 83 NLRB 167.
10 Clark Thread Company, 79 NLRB 542.