Allis-Chalmers Manufacturing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 7, 1946

67 N.L.R.B. 1208 (N.L.R.B. 1946)

In the Matter of ALLIS-CHALMERS MANUFACTURING COMPANY, LA
PORTE WORKS and UNITED FARM EQUIPMENT AND METAL WORKERS
OF AMERICA, C. I. O.
In the Matter Of ALLIS-CHALMERS MANUFACTURING COMPANY, LA
PORTE WORKS and UNITED FARM EQUIPMENT AND METAL WORKERS
OF AMERICA, LOCAL No. 119, C. I. O.
Cases Nos. 13-R-2902 and 13-R-3033, respectively.-Decided May 7,
1946
Mr. W. J. McGowan, of Milwaukee , Wis., and Mr. H. W. Lindsay,
of La Porte, Ind., for the Company.
Meyers & Meyers, by Messrs. Ben Meyers and H. E. Baker, both
of Chicago, Ill., and Richard Marhanka, of La Porte, Ind., for the
International and Local 119.
Mr. Jerome J. Dick, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon amended petitions duly filed by United Farm Equipment
and Metal Workers of America, C. I. 0., herein called the Interna-
tional, and United Farm Equipment and Metal Workers of America,
Local No. 119, C. I. 0., herein called Local 119, alleging that questions
affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation of
employees of Allis-Chalmers Manufacturing Company, La Porte
Works, La Porte, Indiana, herein called the Company, the National
Labor Relations Board provided for an appropriate consolidated
hearing upon due notice before Benjamin B. Salvaty, Jr., Trial Exam-
iner. The hearings were held at La Porte, Indiana, on June 5, 1945,
and February 19, 19461 The Company, the International, and Local
119 appeared and participated. All parties were afforded full oppor-
tunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to
introduce evidence bearing on the issues. At the hearing, the Com-
pany moved that the petition in Case No. 13-R-2922, involving the
I On January 18, 1946, the Board ordered that the record be reopened and on February
19, 1946, an additional hearing was held.
67 N. L. R. B, No 157.
1208
ALLIS-CHALMERS MANUFACTURING COMPANY 1209
Company's watchmen, be dismissed. For the reasons which appear
in Sections III and IV, below, the motion is denied. The Trial Exam-
iner's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and
are hereby affirmed. All parties were afforded opportunity to file
briefs with the Board.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Allis-Chalmers Manufacturing Company is a Delaware corporation
with its principal office and place of business at West Allis, Wisconsin.
It is engaged in the manufacture of machinery of various types and
maintains manufacturing plants throughout the country. The Com-
pany's, La Porte, Indiana, plant is solely involved in this proceeding
and, at this plant, the Company is engaged in the manufacture of both
harvesting and war equipment. The La Porte plant annually uses
raw materials consisting of wood, steel, and rubber, and numerous
other miscellaneous articles, exceeding $10,000,000 in value, approxi-
mately 80 percent of which is shipped to the plant from points outside
the State of Indiana. The La Porte plant's annual sales of finished
products exceed $18,000,000, 95 percent of which is shipped to points
outside the State of Indiana.
The Company admits that it is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
H. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
United Farm Equipment and Metal Workers of America, and its
Local No. 119, are labor organizations affiliated with the Congress of
Industrial Organizations, admitting to membership employees of the
Company.
III. THE QUESTIONS CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Company has refused to grant recognition to Local 119 and
the International as the exclusive bargaining representatives of its
matrons and watchmen, respectively, until these organizations have
been certified by the Board in appropriate units.
In its motion to dismiss the International's petition in Case No.
13-R-2922, relating to its watchmen, the Company argues that under
the doctrine enunciated in the Briggs Indiana case,2 the presently
existing April 11, 1944, extension agreement between Local 119 and
the Company bars the International from seeking to represent the
2 Matter of Briggs Indiana Corporation, 63 N L. R B 1270
1210 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
watchmen. This extension agreement provides that the terms of the
expired 1943-1944 contract between the Company and Local 119,
covering the La Porte plant's production and maintenance employees,
shall remain in effect until superseded by a new contract. The follow-
ing terms of the extended 1943-1944 contract are relevant :
B. Coverage of Agreement
3. This agreement applies only to hourly production and
maintenance employees of the La Porte Works, exclusive of
supervisory employees, and those individuals in the following
classification.
1. Superintendents and general foremen;
2. Foremen and assistant foremen;
3. Inspectors (but not checkers);
4. Time-study men;
5. Timekeepers but not (shop clerks) ;
6. Apprentices;
7. Graduate Student Apprentices;
8. Watchmen (full-time) ;
9. Salaried employees;
and all other employees who act directly or indirectly in the
interests of the Company (within the meaning of such quoted
phrase in the National Labor Relations Act) as already deter-
mined by the National Labor Relations Board.
4. The employees in the above designated classes shall be con-
sidered a part of the management group of the Company and,
accordingly, the Union disclaims any jurisdiction of them (or
their successors in their respective classifications) and the right
to accept them into membership in the Union.
5. But nothing contained in this article shall prevent the Union
from obtaining judicial determination as to the legal correctness
of the exclusion of any of the above classified employees from the
coverage of this agreement. (Emphasis supplied.)
In the Briggs Indiana case, a majority of the Board, reversing
previous decisions, declined to make the election machinery of the Act
available to a local union seeking to represent plant-protection em-
ployees, where the local union's parent body had agreed, in a recent
short term collective bargaining contract with the same employer, that
it would not accept the employer's plant-protection employees as
members. Although clause 4 of the 1943-1944 contract is similar
to the provision considered by the Board in the Briggs Indiana case,
clause 5 of the contract must be read together with this restrictive
language. When both clauses are so read together, it would appear
that the contracting parties intended that "the Union" should have
ALLIS-CHALMERS MANUFACTURING COMPANY 1211
the right to a judicial determination as to whether or not employees
excluded from the coverage of the agreement are "a part of the
management group of the Company," and if found not to be iden-
tified with management, "the Union" could represent them. Thus,
by filing the petition in Case No. 13-R-2922, a proceeding in which
the managerial status of watchmen is placed in issue, the International
was within its rights. Since, as hereinafter found, these workers are
not identified with management, we perceive no reason to dismiss
this petition.'
A statement of a Board agent, introduced into evidence at the hear-
ing, indicates that the International and Local 119 each represents
a substantial number of employees among the Company's watchmen
and matrons, respectively.'
We find that questions affecting commerce have 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. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT; THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
As noted above, the Company and Local 119 are bound by a written
agreement covering all the production and maintenance employees in
the La Porte plant. Local 119 now seeks to enlarge the scope of its
present bargaining unit by adding thereto the La Porte plant's ma-
trons. The Company has no objection to the expanded unit, if a
majority of the matrons select Local 119 in an election by secret ballot.
The International also seeks to enlarge the scope of the present produc-
tion and maintenance grouping by including therein the La Porte
plant's watchmen, excluding the captain and sergeants.' In the alter-
native, it seeks to have these workers established as a separate bargain-
ing unit. Opposing the merger of watchmen with production and
maintenance employees or the establishment of a separate unit of
watchmen, the Company maintains that watchmen are managerial per-
3 Member Houston concurs in the conclusion herein that the petition in Case No. 13-R-
2922 should not be dismissed under the Briggs Indiana doctrine . In view of his dissenting
opinion in that case, however, wherein he stated that any agreement between a labor
organization and an employer « hich might be construed to limit the right of employees
to select collective bargaining representatives, was in derogation of the Act and therefore
invalid , he finds it unnecessary either to agree or disagree with the rationale adopted in
the decision in the instant case disposing of the Company's contention in this connection.
4 The Trial Examiner reported that Local 119 submitted three cards bearing the names
of matrons listed on the Company's pay roll of April 6, 1945. At that time there were
five matrons in the Company 's employ ; however, at the time of the second hearing there
were only two matrons in the Company's employ
The International submitted 17 cards bearing the names of watchmen listed on the
Company 's pay roll of April 6 , 1945 At that time there were 22 watchmen in the alleged
appropriate unit, however , at the time of the second hearing there were 18 watchmen
in the Company's employ
5 The parties agree that the captain and sergeants , who are carried on the Company's
pay roll as foreman and assistant foremen, respectively , are supervisory employees.
1212 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
sonnel and are not "employees" within the meaning of the Act, and that
finding them to be a separate unit or including them in the more
comprehensive unit would not effectuate the policies of the Act.
The watchmen constitute a well-organized plant-protection force
consisting of 18 guards under a deputized captain and 2 deputized
sergeants. They stand watch at plant gates and patrol the plant.
All the guards are uniformed, but are neither militarized 6 nor depu-
tized. Their collective functions are to deny unauthorized persons
and vehicles access to the Company's plant, to prevent materials or
articles not properly cleared from being removed from the plant,, and
to make reports with respect to the time employees enter or leave
the plant. In addition, it is incumbent upon them to report infractions
of the Company's rules to the violators' supervisors. However, they
have no authority to discipline an employee who violates any rule.
The Company asserts that the watchmen are direct representatives
of management, and on this premise, urges that they cannot be deemed
to be "employees" within the meaning of the Act. We find no war-
rant in the record for the conclusion that watchmen are identified with
management. They do not formulate nor determine the Company's
labor relations policy. Their functions are unrelated to the pro-
duction process and they neither assign nor direct the work of other
employees. As respects other employees, guards are merely monitors
and not managerial employees.? Even assuming arguendo that the
watchmen are in some manner identified with management, in their
own relations with the Company they are, nevertheless, "employees"
within the meaning of the Act."
We are persuaded, however, that the watchmen are monitorial
employees. As such, we shall place them in a separate unit of their
own. In consonance with our holding in recent cases; we are con-
strained to reject the Company's contention that a separate unit of
watchmen will not effectuate the policies of the Act.
We find that all watchmen at the Company's La Porte, Indiana,
plant, excluding the captain, sergeants, and all other supervisory
employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or
otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or effectively rec-
ommend such action, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of
collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
The matrons' principal duty consists of taking care of the female
employees' restrooms. It is clear that the matrons are not moni-
The watchmen were demilitarized on August 14, 1945.
' See Matter of Bethlehem Steel Company, 61 N. L. R. B. 892; Matter of The Cudahy
Packing Company, 67 N L. R B 150.
8 See Matter of Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation , Vesta -Shannopin Coal Division,
66 N L. R B 386
B See Matter of Bethlehem Steel Company, supra ; Matter of The Cudahy Packing Com-
pany, supra; Matter of Allegheny Ludlum Steel Corporation, 64 N L It. B. 1284.
ALLIS-CHALMERS MANUFACTURING COMPANY 1213
torial employees. They may therefore be consolidated in a single
unit with the production and maintenance employees. We shall direct
an election among them to ascertain their desires as to whether or not
they wish to be merged into the existing unit represented by Local 119.
We shall direct that the questions concerning representation which
have arisen be resolved by separate elections by secret ballot among
the employees in the watchmen's unit herein found appropriate and
among the employees in the following voting group, who were
employed during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date
of the Direction of Elections herein, subject to the limitations and
additions set forth in the Direction :
All matrons at the Company's La Porte, Indiana, plant, excluding
all supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge,
discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or
effectively recommend such action.
If a majority of the matrons in the above voting group vote for
Local 119, they will be taken to have indicated a desire to be bargained
for as part of the production and maintenance unit now represented
by that organization.
DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS'
By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National
Labor Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, and pursuant to Article III, Section 9, of National Labor
Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 3, as amended, it is
hereby
DnuECZT,D that, as part of the investigation to ascertain representa-
tives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Allis-Chalmers
Manufacturing Company, La Porte Works, La Porte, Indiana, elec-
tions 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 Thir-
teenth 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 the following employees who,
were employed by the Company 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 elections :
1214 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(1) All watchmen in the appropriate unit set forth in Section III,
above, to determine whether or not they desire to be represented by
United Farm Equipment and Metal Workers of America, C. I. 0.,
for the purposes of collective bargaining.
(2) All matrons in the voting group set forth in Section III, above,
to determine whether or not they desire to be represented by United
Farm Equipment and Metal Workers of America, Local No. 119,
C. 1. 0., for the purposes of collective bargaining.