Hall Scott Motor Car Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 13, 1946

71 N.L.R.B. 1053 (N.L.R.B. 1946)

In the Matter of HALL SCOTT MOTOR CAR COMPANY, EMPLOYER and
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, DISTRICT LODGE #115,
PETITIONER
Case No. 20-R-1851.-Decided December 13, 1946
Pruitt, Hale, and Cowrsen, by Mr. C. C. Sawyer, of San Diego , Calif.,
for the Employer.
Mr. A. C. McGraw, of Oakland, Calif., for the Petitioner.
ill r. Ralph l inleler, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
Upon a first amended petition duly filed, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board on September 12, 1946, conducted a prehearing election
among employees of the Employer in the alleged appropriate unit, to
determine whether or not they desired to be represented by the Peti-
tioner for the purposes of collective bargaining.'
At the close of the election, a Tally of Ballots was furnished the
parties. The Tally shows that there were approximately nine eligible
voters of whom six voted for the Petitioner, one voted against the
Petitioner, and one voted under challenge.
Thereafter, a hearing was held at San Francisco, California, on
October 17, 1946, before Thomas J. Davis, hearing officer. The hear-
ing 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
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
Hall Scott Motor Car Company is a corporation engaged in the
manufacture and sale of marine and bus engines at Berkeley, Cali-
I The employer contends that the pi esent proceeding involves substantial issues and that
the Regional Director was therefore without authority to direct a prehearing election The
only issues raised by the Employer relate to the status of the guards as employees under
the Act and the Petitioner's competence to represent the guards in view of the fact that it
represents the Employer ' s production and maintenance employees The Board has so fre-
quently decided these issues adversely to the position taken by the Employer that as can
find no abuse of discretion in the Regional Director 's directing that an election be held in
the premises See cases cited in footnote 3, below
71 N L R B , No 176,
1053
1054 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
fornia. In 1946 the Employer purchased raw materials having an
approximate value of $6,000,000, of which more than 50 percent was
obtained from outside the State of California. During the same
period the Employer shipped almost all its finished products, valued at
approximately $8,000,000, to points outside the State.
We find that the Employer is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Petitioner is a labor organization claiming to represent em-
ployees of the Employer.
M. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Employer refuses to recognize the Petitioner as the exclusive
bargaining representative of a unit of approximately nine guards
and one fireman, contending (1) that the aforesaid individuals are
not employees within the meaning of the Act; and (2) that the
Petitioner represents the Employer's production and maintenance
employees 2 and is therefore precluded from representing the guards
and fireman.
The guards in question are uniformed and bear side arms; they are
not deputized. In addition to performing the customary duties of
plant-protection personnel, they are required to detect, prevent, and
report violations of plant rules which involve, among other things,
the proper punching of time cards, the proper use of company prop-
erty, the identification and authorization of personnel removing
company materials and driving company vehicles from the premises,
and compliance with city ordinances. The fireman's principal respon-
sibility is the prevention and extinguishing of fires and the organiza-
tion of an auxiliary fire department. All these employees are under
the Employer's exclusive control.
We have previously considered and resolved adversely to the Em-
ployer's contentions the issues herein presented.3 Accordingly, we
find no merit to the contentions in the present case.
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. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
There is no disagreement as to the grouping of employees in the pro-
posed unit . Accordingly, we find that all guards and firemen em-
'In a consent election held on September 12, 1946, the production and maintenance em-
ployees selected the Petitioner as their exclusive bargaining representative.
3 Matter of Monsanto Chemical Company, 71 N L. R B 11 . Matter of Cudahy Packing
Company, 65 N. L R B 10, 12, Matter of Craig Shipbuilding Company, 65 N. L. R B 97 ;
Matter of Solar Manufacturing Corporation, 65 N L R B 1366, 1368.
HALL SCOTT MOTOR CAR COMPANY 1055
ployed by the Employer at its plant in Berkeley, California, but ex-
cluding production and maintenance employees, switchboard operator,
methods analysts, production planner, confidential messenger, plant
messenger, office and technical employees, accounting clerks, blueprint
machine operators, comptorneter operators, design engineers, pay-roll
clerks, purchasing clerks, service department clerks, stenographers,,
shipping clerks, tabulating machine operators, tool designers, em-
ployees in the industrial relations department, foremen and assistant
foremen, confidential employees with access to information respecting
personnel, confidential secretaries to top management personnel, all
cafeteria employees, 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, 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 the
Petitioner has secured a majority of the valid votes cast and that the
challenged ballots are insufficient in number to affect the results of the
election. Accordingly, we shall certify the Petitioner as the collective
bargaining representative of the employees in the appropriate unit.
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that International Association of Machinists,
District Lodge #115, has been designated and selected by a majority
of the employees in the unit described in Section IV, above, as their
representative for the purposes of collective bargaining and that,
pursuant to Section 9 (a) of the Act, the said organization is the ex-
clusive representative of all such employees for the purposes of col-
lective bargaining with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of em-
ployment, and other conditions of employment.
MR. JAMES J. REYNOLDS, JR., dissenting :
It is clear from the record that the duties of the employees con-
stituting the appropriate unit in this case are monitorial as well as
custodial in nature. For the reasons stated in my dissenting opinion in
the [Monsanto Chemical Company case,4 which I find equally applicable
here, I would dismiss the present petition.
471 N. L. R. B. 11.
717734-47-vol. 71--68