State Bank of India

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 20, 1977

229 N.L.R.B. 838 (N.L.R.B. 1977)

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
State Bank of India and Chicago Joint Board,
Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers
Union, AFL-CIO, Petitioner.' Case 13-RC-14061
May 20, 1977
DECISION ON REVIEW AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
On July 15, 1976, the Regional Director for Region
13 issued his Decision and Order in the above-
entitled proceeding in which, relying on the Board's
established policy of declining to assert jurisdiction
over enterprises that are owned and operated by
foreign governments, he concluded that "it is
appropriate to decline to assert jurisdiction over this
Employer because of its close relationship to the
Central Government of India."
Thereafter, the Petitioner filed a timely request for
review, submitting that there are compelling reasons
for reconsidering the Board's policy of declining to
assert discretionary jurisdiction over employers
engaged in commercial activities within the United
States of America solely because of their "close
relationship" to a foreign government. The Employer
opposed review.
By telegraphic order dated November 4, 1976, the
Board granted Petitioner's request for review. There-
after, both parties filed briefs. On January 17, 1977,
the Board's Executive Secretary notified the parties
that the Board would hear oral argument. 2 Oral
arguments were held before all five Members of the
Board on February 15, 1977.
Having duly considered the entire record in this
case, including the briefs and oral arguments, the
Board finds:
This case affords the Board the opportunity to
reexamine its past policy of refusing to exercise
jurisdiction over commercial activities of foreign
governments or their agents occurring within the
United States. There are two questions: whether the
Board has the power to assert jurisdiction and
whether the Board should exercise that power. Since
1967, the Board has consistently declined to assert
jurisdiction over such employers and usually found it
unnecessary to reach the question whether it had
jurisdiction. We now conclude that both questions
are to be answered in the affirmative. Accordingly,
for the reasons set forth hereafter, we shall reverse
the Regional Director, overrule the authorities upon
which he relied, and direct an election herein.
'The name of the Petitioner appears as amended at the hearing to reflect
the merger of the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of Amenca with the
Textile Workers Union.
2 Thereafter, the Board denied Petitioner's request for a postponement of
the oral argument. It also denied requests from counsel in SK Products
Corp., Case 13-RC-14229, for oral argument in that case and its
229 NLRB No. 137
The Petitioner seeks to represent a stipulated unit
of employees employed in the State Bank of India's
branch office in Chicago, Illinois. The State Bank of
India (herein sometimes called State Bank) took the
position that the petition should be dismissed on the
grounds that the Board does not have, or should not
assert, jurisdiction over it because it is a foreign
corporation substantially owned and operated by the
Indian Government as an integral part of the
monetary policy of that country. In support of these
contentions, the State Bank cited McCulloch v.
Sociedad Nacional de Marineros, de Honduras [United
Fruit Co.], 372 U.S. 10 (1963); British Rail-Interna-
tional, Inc., 163 NLRB 721 (1967), which compared
Sociedad Nacional de Marineros; and AGIP, USA,
Inc., 196 NLRB 1144 (1972), which depended upon
British Rail-International. In the cited Board cases,
the Board majority, in the exercise of its discretion,
declined to assert jurisdiction over American corpo-
rations operating within the territorial limits of the
United States on the basis of such employers' "close
relationship" with an "agency" or "an instrumentali-
ty" of a foreign government, without reaching the
question whether, in fact, the Board had legal
jurisdiction over the employers' operations with
respect to the employees involved therein.3
The Nature of the Employer's Operations
The Employer, which was at one time India's
largest privately owned bank, was nationalized in
1955 and incorporated under a special act as the
State Bank of India. By law, the government must
hold at least 55 percent of the State Bank's shares. At
present over 92 percent of the State Bank's stock is
owned by the Reserve Bank of India, which in turn is
a wholly owned and controlled agency of the Indian
Government. The State Bank is run by 18 directors,
of whom 16 are appointed by, or subject to approval
by, the Indian Government. By law, no fewer than
nine must be directly appointed by the Central
Government. At present, 8 percent of the State
Bank's stock is held by, and two of its directors were
elected by, private persons of unspecified nationality
in India. The goals of the State Bank are largely
determined by the State Bank Act, orders of the
Reserve Bank, and direct requests by the Indian
Central Government. In addition, Indian law pro-
vides that the State Bank must act as agent for the
Reserve Bank of India (herein sometimes called
RBI). RBI performs many of the functions per-
consolidation for argument herewith. The instant Employer opposed such
consolidation.
3 Chairman Fanning in his dissenting opinion in AGIP, USA, supra, did
reach the question of the Board's legal jurisdiction, and would have asserted
jurisdiction over the employer therein. He did not participate in British Rail-
Inlernational.
838
STATE BANK OF INDIA
formed by the Federal Reserve Bank, the Treasury,
and other Federal Government agencies in the
United States, e.g., collects taxes, holds Central
Government moneys, pays checks for Central Gov-
ernment employees, determines and holds required
reserves of banks, prints bank notes which are legal
tender, and so on.
The State Bank, with central offices in Bombay,
India, does approximately one-third of the total
banking business in India and acts as agent for the
RBI in any location where it is established and RBI
is not, performing such functions as listed above. In
addition, its directors and officers have such govern-
mental functions as the authority to authenticate
official documents, to attest pension applications by
Indian government employees and to certify passport
applications of Indian citizens.
In addition to its domestic Indian banking busi-
ness, the State Bank of India carries on international
banking throughout the world. In 1974, it had
overseas branch offices in the United States, the
United Kingdom, West Germany, Sri Lanka, and the
Republic of Maldives, and representative offices for
the Middle East in Lebanon and for Eastern and
Western Europe in West Germany. In 1975, it
opened branch offices in the Bahamas, Pakistan, and
added another branch in London and opened the
branch involved herein, in Chicago. It announced
arrangements in hand to set up representative offices
of Bahrain, Moscow, and Manila. The State Bank
has been closely associated with the financial
arrangements required for assisting the country's
traditional exports of a wide variety of capital goods
to various countries, Indian merchants, overseas
investors, importers, and multinationals operating in
India or in the location of the branch office. As part
of its foreign banking business, the State Bank buys
and sells foreign exchange, promotes the flow of
moneys from persons of Indian descent resident in a
foreign country to persons in India in order to make
foreign exchange more available in India, carries
lines of credit with the Indian Government as its
official bank in such country, and engages in the
usual international monetary transactions relating to
international trade and investment.
The Chicago branch, the facility in issue, was
licensed "to engage in a general banking business" in
Chicago, Illinois, by virtue of a certificate of
authority issued by the Commissioner of Banks and
Trust Companies of the State of Illinois on May 6,
1975, under the Foreign Banking Office Act of 1973. 4
That Act permitted branches of foreign banks to
engage in a full spectrum of banking functions,
subject to essentially the same restrictions and
4 ll. Rev. Stat. Ch. 16 1/2 §501. et seq.
At the oral argument, counsel for the State Bank indicated that both
requirements as Illinois-chartered domestic banks.
According to exhibits in evidence, foreign bankers
have long frequented New York City, an important
financial center, and Japanese bankers have had
major establishments on the West Coast for many
years. As recently as 1973, there were no foreign
bank branches in Chicago. Today there are 24
foreign banks in Chicago, with a grand total of assets
which have more than doubled: from $686 million at
the end of 1974 to $1,555 million at the end of 1975,
according to figures maintained by the Federal
Reserve Board. We take official notice that this
figure increased to $2.1 billion by late 1976. This
influx of foreign financial institutions has significant-
ly contributed to the development of Chicago as a
major international banking center, due to a great
number of the Nation's largest corporations as well
as those of foreign countries doing business in the
Chicago area. Neither the Illinois Act nor the
statistics included in the record distinguish between
foreign banks on the basis of ownership, i.e., between
privately and publicly or state-owned foreign banks.5
The Employer's Chicago branch began operations
on December 29, 1975. Although overall policy
decisions regarding overseas operations are made by
the international division of the central office and its
overseas branch section, the day-to-day operations
and personnel decisions are the responsibility of local
branch officers. The Chicago branch has a manager,
an assistant manager, and an accountant, all of
whom were sent from India. The manager or, in his
absence, the assistant manager has the authority to
interview, hire, and fire employees. At the time of the
hearing, there were 11 locally hired employees, of
whom 2 were Indian nationals. The branch manager
may initiate recommendations based on local condi-
tions as to hours, fringe benefits, and all other
conditions of employment, subject to approval by the
central office. However, the record indicates that the
central office relies heavily on the discretion of the
officers in the branch. As the Regional Director
found, at the present time the branch is operating
without even a personnel policies manual and the
branch officers are "effectively free to formulate and
pursue their own determined policies on an ad hoc
basis." For the most part, such policies have been
based on the customary practices of domestic banks
in the Chicago area.
The Question of the Board's Statutory
Jurisdiction
In declining to assert jurisdiction, the Regional
Director did not consider whether the Employer is
Italy and France are currently operating state-owned banks in the Chicago
area under the Foreign Banking Act.
839
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
operating in interstate commerce or its impact
thereon. However, at the hearing herein, the parties
entered into the following stipulation concerning the
Employer's commerce statement:
State Bank of India, organized under the laws of
India and licensed to do business in the State of
Illinois, is a financial institution located at 10
South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois. During the
past year, a representative period, it had a gross
volume of business in excess of $1 million; and,
during the same period engaged in interstate
financial transactions from its location at Chica-
go, Illinois, in excess of one hundred thousand
dollars.
These stipulated facts are enough to warrant finding,
as we do, that the Employer is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
The Employer's operation from its Chicago branch
office "partakes of the nature of an instrumentality
of commerce"6 and meets the Board's present
jurisdictional standards for the assertion of jurisdic-
tion thereover. 7 The fact that the Employer was
organized under the laws of a foreign nation is
immaterial to the Board's statutory authority to
assert jurisdiction when, as here, such corporation is
authorized to and does engage in business operations
within the sovereign jurisdiction of the United States
and the Board.8 We turn briefly to the argument that
the State Bank of India is an instrumentality of a
foreign government or state or a government-owned
corporation, hence is not an employer as defined in
the Act. Section 2(2), as amended in 1947, provides
that the term "employer" shall not include "the
United States or any wholly owned Government
corporation, or any Federal Reserve Bank, or any
State or political subdivision thereof .... " On this
point it seems enough to observe that the Employer
is not within the terms of the exclusions. 9 According-
ly, we find that we have the statutory power to assert
jurisdiction herein.
8 Amalgamated Bank of New York, 92 NLRB 545 (1950). In N.LR.B. v.
Bank of America National Trust A Savings Association, 130 F.2d 624, 626
(1942), cert. denied 318 U.S. 791, enforcing an early Board Order appearing
in 14 NLRB 207 (1939), and 26 NLRB 198 (1940), the Ninth Circuit stated:
The impact upon commerce of the partial or complete cessation of its
banking operations would be felt immediately throughout the country,
and indeed the world. ... The dependence of commerce upon the
continuity of credit furnished by these great banking institutions is as
marked as was its dependence upon the electric energy furnished by the
intrastate utilities involved in Consolidated Edison Co. v. N.LR.B., 305
U.S. 197.
A $50,000 standard is applicable to this type of enterprise. H P O
Service, Inc., 122 NLRB 394 (1958).
8 See The Royal Bank of Canada (San Juan Branch), 67 NLRB 403 (1946).
In that case jurisdiction was asserted over a foreign corporation conducting
In so finding, we are not unmindful that the
Employer contends that the Supreme Court's deci-
sion in McCulloch v. Sociedad Nacional de Marineros
contains an "explicit admonition that the Board not
extend its jurisdiction into areas of international
significance without a clear Congressional mandate"
in the following statement:
We therefore conclude, as we did in Benz, [v.
Compania Naviera Hidalgo, 353 U.S. 138 (1957)],
that for us to sanction the exercise of local
sovereignty under such conditions in this "delicate
field of international relations there must be present
the affirmative intention of the Congress clearly
expressed" 353 U.S., at 147. Since neither we nor
the parties are able to find any such clear
expression, we hold that the Board was without
jurisdiction to order the election. [Emphasis
supplied.] [372 U.S. at 21-22.1
The Employer asserts that the Petitioner herein has
failed to demonstrate an " 'affirmative intention of
the Congress' to confer jurisdiction over an employer
that is virtually the alter ego of the Government of
India and an integral part of that country's national
and international monetary policies." Under our
construction of the jurisdictional provisions of the
Act, it is the Employer who has failed to demonstrate
any congressional intent to exclude such employers
from the coverage of the Act or to preclude the
Board from exercising jurisdiction.
We recognize that "The canon of construction
which teaches that legislation of Congress, unless a
contrary intent appears, is meant to apply only
within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States,
Blackmer v. United States, [284 U.S. 421, 437 (1932)1,
is a valid approach whereby unexpressed congres-
sional intent may be ascertained."10 In both Benz
and McCulloch, the Court searched for specific
statutory language clearly expressing an affirmative
intent to apply the Act to crews working foreign-flag
ships, at least while temporarily within the "local
sovereignty" of the United States by coming within
a general banking business in the Territory of Puerto Rico by virtue of a
certificate of registration issued by the Puerto Rican Government. The
decision also noted that the unfair labor practices involved had occurred
within the Territory of Puerto Rico over which the Board had plenary
jurisdiction. See also Delta Match Corporation, 102 NLRB 1400, fn. 2 (1953),
deeming immaterial the fact that the employer was a wholly owned
subsidiary of a Swedish corporation, as it was authorized to and does engage
in business in the State of Louisiana. No further inquiry was made in either
case into ownership or control.
9 See N.L.RB. v. Bank of America National Trust & Savings Association,
130 F.2d 624, 626-627. Expressio unius est exclusio alterius.
10 Foley Bros., Inc. v. Fllardo, 336 U.S. 281, 285 (1948). In that case, the
Supreme Court found that there was no language in the Eight Hour Law in
question that gives "any indication of a congressional purpose to extend its
coverage beyond places over which the United States has sovereignty or has
some measure of legislative control."
840
STATE BANK OF INDIA
American waters. In McCulloch, the Board had
asserted jurisdiction over foreign-flag vessels because
the foreign corporate owner was a wholly owned
subsidiary of an American corporation and the two
corporations were held to be joint employers. The
Court held that the Board had no jurisdiction,
discretionary or otherwise, over the "internal man-
agement and affairs" of the foreign-flag vessels,
relying on the absence of language clearly expressing
an affirmative intention to cover such vessels."
Neither case dealt with the issue of foreign govern-
ments or their agents as employers doing business
within the Territorial United States. In finding that
the Board lacked jurisdiction, the Court cautioned
that its holding was not to imply "any impairment of
our own soverignty, or limitation of the power of
Congress' in this field." The holdings merely reaffirm
that "[a]ll legislation is prima facie territorial" and
"extraterritorial effect may not be given to laws by
implication."12 Thus, the Act was to be given this
normal territorial interpretation and construed as
applying generally only to conduct taking place
within, or having effect within, the territory of the
United States. The Court explained (372 U.S. at 18):
We held [in Benz] that the Act did not apply,
searching the language and the legislative history
and concluding that the latter "inescapably des-
cribes the boundaries of the Act as including only the
workingmen of our own country and its possessions. "
Id., at 144. [Emphasis supplied.]
Within these boundaries, there is no basis for
believing that the Act was intended to exclude any
employees in our country whose employer in this
country is an "employer" engaged in "commerce"
within the meaning of the Act.
There is no question of our sovereignty,l3 merely
an assertion that "sovereign immunity" must be
implied.14 Such a contention is addressed to our
discretion to decline, not our power to assert,
jurisdiction.
I The Court also relied on the "law of nations" and the particular Treaty
of Friendship, Commerce and Consular Rights which provided that
merchant vessels flying the flags and having the papers of either country
"shall, both within the territorial waters of the other High Contracting Party
and on the high seas, be deemed to be the vessels of the Party whose flag is
flown."
is Amercan Banana Company v. United Fruit Company, 213 U.S. 347, 357
(1909); 50 Am. Jur. Statutes, 510, par. 487. See also Restatement of the law
Second: Foreign Relations Law of the United States, sec. 38. Territorial
Interpretation of United States Law (American Law Institute Publishers,
1965).
13 Chief Justice Marshall, in an early case regarding the doctrine of
sovereign immunity, stated: "The jurisdiction of the nation within its own
territory is necessarily exclusive and absolute. It is susceptible of no
limitation not imposed by itself. Any restriction upon it, deriving validly
The Question of the Board's Exercise of
Discretionary Jurisdiction
As noted above, the Employer argued that the
Board has an established policy of exercising its
discretion not to assert jurisdiction over employers
who are found to have a "close relationship" with an
"agency" or "an instrumentality" of a foreign
government. The Regional Director found that "the
ownership and management of the Employer can be
traced directly to the Central Government of India"
and that, "in addition to performing all the usual
functions of a commercial bank, the Employer
performs a variety of functions as agent for the
Reserve Bank of India or the Central Government."
On the basis of "strong similarities in ownership,
management, and function" between the Employer
herein and that in AGIP, USA, Inc., he was
"convinced that the factors relied on by the Board in
reaching its conclusion in AGIP are equally applica-
ble to the present case, and that it would be
inappropriate to assert jurisdiction herein." There-
fore, he concluded that "it is appropriate to decline
to assert jurisdiction over this Employer because of
its close relationship to the Central Government of
India."
Urging reexamination of the Board's policy of
declination of jurisdiction over enterprises found to
be "related to a foreign government" but doing
business in the United States, the Petitioner argued
that
in the light of the ever growing nationalization of
industry abroad and the expansion of such
nationalized industries to this country, whatever
may have been the policy considerations behind
the Board not asserting jurisdiction are clearly
outweighed by the possible relegation of an
important . . . segment of the American work
force to a group of second class citizens. No
public policy or policy of the Act supports such a
disenfranchisement of a group.
We have carefully examined the precedent. In the
previous cases, the Board has deemed it inappropri-
from an external source, would imply a diminution of its sovereignty to the
extent of the restriction, and an investment of the sovereignty to the same
extent in that power which could impose such restriction." The Schooner
Exchange v. M'Faddon, 7 Cranch 116, 135 (1812), upholding a plea of
immunity supported by an executive branch suggestion, by noting that in
the circumstances involved a recognition of immunity was supported by the
law and practice of nations.
t4 Herbert Harvey, Inc., 171 NLRB 238 (1968), relied upon by the
Employer, is not germane. Although the Board indicated that it could not
assert jurisdiction over the World Bank because that international
organization enjoys "the privileges and immunities from the laws of the
sovereignty in which it is located customarily extended to such organiza-
tions," the immunity was not merely implied. There is a specific statutory
basis in the International Organization Immunities Act, 22 U.S.C. I 288, et
seq., which grants a type of "sovereign immunity" to such organizations.
841
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ate to assert jurisdiction affecting certain employees
working in the United States for an American
corporation "because that employer was a wholly
owned subsidiary of . . . an agency" of a foreign
government. 15 The first such case, British Rail-
International, Inc., set forth no reason beyond a
citation to McCulloch v. Sociedad Nacional, which we
have considered at lenght above. The second, AGIP,
USA, Inc., relied upon by the Regional Director,
merely concluded from "the existence of a close
relationship" between the Employer and "an instru-
mentality" of a foreign government that the assertion
of jurisdiction would be inappropriate, citing British
Rail.
In both cases, the Board found it unnecessary to
reach the question of whether, in fact, the Board had
statutory jurisdiction over the employers involved.
Having done so here, we now conclude that there is
no public policy or policy of the Act which, on the
ground that the employer is discolsed to be an
"agency" or "instrumentality" of a foreign state,
justifies us to continue to decline jurisdiction in cases
affecting employees in our own country whose
employer engages in commercial activity which
meets the Board's jurisdictional standards for such
enterprises.
Our conclusion that there is no valid justification
for declining jurisdiction is reinforced by Congress'
recent enactment of the Foreign Sovereign Immuni-
ties Act of 1976.16 That act manifests a congressional
intent to deny "sovereign immunity" to a "foreign
state's private or commercial acts" occurring within
the United States. That act, which became effective
January 19, 1977, defines a "foreign state" to include
"an agency or instrumentality of a foreign state,"
defines such terms,17 and provides that there is no
l' See C. P. Clare and Company, 191 NLRB 589, 590 (1971), explicating
British Rail on the sole ground of ownership by an agency of the British
Goverment. Although the American corporation in British Rail was a
wholly owned subsidiary, that in AGIP was 97-percent foreign government
owned. The State Bank of India is presently 92-percent foreign government
owned.
'6 P.L. 94-583, enacted Oct. 21, 1976, 90 Stat. 2891, amending Title 28 of
the United States Code to add "Chapter 97-Jurisdictional Immunities of
Foreign States," and defining the jurisdiction of the United States courts in
suits against foreign states, including political subdivisions of a foreign state
or an agency or instrumentality thereof.
7 Sec. 1603(b) defines an "agency or instrumentality of a foreign state"
as any entity-
(1) which is a separate legal person, corporate or otherwise, and
(2) which is an organ of a foreign state or political subdivision
thereof, or a majority of whose shares or other ownership interest is
owned by a foreign state or political subdivision thereof, and
(3) which is neither a citizen of a State of the United States as
defined in section 1332(c) and (d) of this title, nor created under the
laws of any third country.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c) "a corporation shall be deemed a citizen of any
State by which it has been incorporated and of the State where it has its
principal place of business."
1is Sec. 1603(d) states: "A 'commercial activity' means either a regular
immunity from the jurisdiction of the courts of the
United States or of the States in any case in which
the action is based upon a "commercial activity
carried on in the United States by a foreign state." 1 8
Excepting punitive damages, the foreign state "shall
be liable in the same manner and to the same extent
as a private individual under like circumstances."
The bill, which was drafted over many years and had
involved extensive consultations within the adminis-
tration, among bar associations, and in the academic
community, was sponsored by the Departments of
State and Justice. It was regarded as urgently needed
"in a modem world where foreign state enterprises
are every day participants in commercial activi-
ties."1 9 While we recognize that the Foreign Sover-
eign Immunities Act of 1976 affords judicial, not
administrative, determinations of rights growing out
of such activities, we believe that it is further support
for our decision to treat foreign state enterprises
coming within our jurisdiction as we would private
individuals under like circumstances.20
Therefore, we find from the above, that it will
better effectuate the policies of the Act for the Board
to assert, rather than in our discretion decline,
jurisdiction in any case involving employees em-
ployed within the territorial jurisdiction of the
United States by any "agency" or "instrumentality"
of a foreign state, engaged in commercial activity
which meets the Board's jurisdictional standards for
such enterprises. Accordingly, British Rail-Interna-
tional, Inc., AGIP, USA, Inc., and related cases are
hereby overruled.2 1
Inasmuch as the employees involved in this
proceeding are employed within the United States by
the State Bank of India and such Employer is
engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act,
course of commercial conduct or a particular commercial transaction or act.
The commercial character of an activity shall be determined by reference to
the nature of the course of conduct or particular transaction or act, rather
than by reference to its purpose."
19 H. Rept. 94-1487, House Committee on the Judiciary, 94th Cong., 2d
Sess., p. 7. The legislative history also recognizes that 'As a general matter,
entities which meet the definition of an 'agency or instrumentality of a
foreign state' could assume a variety of forms, including a state trading
corporation, a mining enterprise, a transport organization such as a shipping
line or airline, a steel company, a central bank, an export association, a
governmentalprocurement agency or a department or ministry which acts and
is suable in its own name." (Emphasis supplied.) Ibid, pp. 15-16. The
emphasized examples indicate entities similar to those which have been
involved in NLRB cases in this area, e.g., British Rail-nternational, Inc., the
instant case, and AGIP, USA, Inc. We note, but find it unnecessary to
discuss herein, the fact that both British Rail and AGIP involved American
corporations.
20 Although Member PeneUlo dissented from the grant of review in this
case, he joins in the Board's opinion asserting jurisdiction over the
Employer. In view of the enactment of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities
Act of 1976, which did not become effective until January of this year,
Member Penello believes that declining jurisdiction over the Employer or
discretionary grounds is no longer appropriate.
21 Chairman Fanning joins in overruling AGIP, USA, Inc., for the same
reasons that led him to dissent therefrom and for such additional
considerations as are expressed in this decision.
842
we find that it will effectuate the purposes of the Act
to assert jurisdiction herein.
The Appropriate Bargaining Unit
At the hearing, the parties stipulated, and accord-
ingly we find, that the following employees constitute
a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining within the meaning of the Act:
All full-time and regular part-time employees,
including tellers, new account clerks, reception-
843
ists, Telex and Mail-room employees, bookkeep-
ing employees, and typists employed at the
Employer's branch office in Chicago, Illinois, but
excluding all officers, managerial employees,
professional employees, confidential employees,
temporary employees, maintenance employees,
guards and supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Direction of Election and Excelsior footnote
omitted from publication.]
STATE BANK OF INDIA