Indiana and Michigan Electric Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 17, 1943

52 N.L.R.B. 679 (N.L.R.B. 1943)

IV
In the Matter Of INDIANA AND MICHIGAN ELECTRIC COMPANY and
DISTRICT 50, UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA (UTILITY DIVISION)
Case No. R-5999 .-Decided September 17, 1943
Mr. Orlo R . Dealzl, of South Bend , Ind., for the Company.
Messrs. Joe B. Board, of Indianapolis , Ind., and Robert C. Davidson,
of Linton , Ind., for the Union.
Mr. David V. Easton, of counsel 'to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a petition duly filed by District 50, United Mine Workers of
America (Utility Division), herein called the Union, alleging that a
question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation
of employees of Indiana and Michigan Electric Company, South Bend,
Indiana, herein called the Company, the National Labor Relations
Board provided for an appropriate hearing upon due notice before
Leon A. Rosell, Trial Examiner. Said hearing was held at South
Bend, Indiana, on August 27, 1943. The Company and the Union
appeared, participated, and were afforded full opportunity to be heard,
to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce ' evidence
bearing on the issues. The Trial Examiner'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
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Indiana and Michigan Electric Company, an Indiana corporation,
with its principal place of business in South Bend, Indiana, is a sub-
sidiary of the American Gas and Electric Company of New York.
The Company is engaged in generation, transmission, distribution,
and sale of electrical appliances in the States of Indiana and Michigan.
52 N. L R B., No. 117.
679
680 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL 'LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Company operates primarily in the State of Indiana, but also
operates in two counties in the State of Michigan. The Company is
engaged in war production, furnishing electrical energy to war,pro-
duction plants which consume in excess of 50 percent of the entire
production of the Company. The Company admits that it is engaged
in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
H. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
District 50, United Mine Workers of America (Utility Division), is
a labor organization admitting to membership employees of the
Company.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Company refuses to grant exclusive bargaining rights to the
Union unless and until the latter is certified by the Board.
Statements of the Regional Director and of the Trial Examiner,
introduced into evidence at the hearing, indicate that the Union repre-
sents a substantial number of employees in the unit hereinafter found
appropriate?
We find that a question affecting commerce has 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 Union seeks to represent a unit consisting of all guards and
watchmen employed by the Company exclusive of supervisory em-
ployees.2 The record discloses that these employees are armed and
deputized by the military authority. The company does not object
to the unit as such sought by the Union, but contends that a unit of
these employees is inappropriate because (a) the loyalties of these
employees should not be divided by their union interests and their
obligations to the Company and the Government, (b) the guards and
watchmen are not employees within the meaning of the Act, and (c)
the Union herein should not be permitted to become the bargaining
representative of such employees inasmuch as it already represents
'The Regional Director reported that the Union submitted 30 designations of which 26
bore apparently genuine original signatures of persons whose names appear upon the
Company's pay roll of May 17, 1943. Said pay roll contains the names of 46 persons within
the appropriate unit.
The Trial Examiner stated that the Union submitted at the hearing 29 designation cards
of which 28 bore the names of persons appearing upon the Company 's pay roll of August
15, 1943; said pay roll containing 40 names of employees within the appropriate unit. The
Company did not contest the authenticity of these designations.
2 The parties stipulated at the hearing that there are three employees who are considered
supervisors . They are Lloyd E. Clark, George Goodrick, and John Hanley.
INDIANA AND MICHIGAN ELECTRIC COMPANY 681
the production and maintenance employees. It further contends that
if the Board should find that these employees may be represented by
the same labor organization which represents the production and
maintenance employees, they should not be included within the same
local as such employees.
We have recently had occasion to pass upon the arguments ad-
vanced by the Company at a public hearing conducted in a similar
proceeding in which the United States War Department, Navy De-
partment, and Maritime Commisison, were given an opportunity to
participate 3 and as a result of this hearing, we iterated our former
findings that militarized plant-protection personnel are employees
within the meaning of the Act and may be represented by the same
labor 'organization which represents the production and maintenance
employees,4 stating :
The militarization of plant-protection employees, while no
obstacle to unionization, is nevertheless significant. As civilian
auxiliaries of a military force, the guards have greater duties and
obligations than have those plant-protection employees who are
not militarized. To the end that the guards may be better able to
function within the military sphere, and to permit the military
authorities to exercise greater control over the guards, we shall
establish a bargaining unit for all militarized plant-protection
employees separate-and apart from those who are non-militarized.
We contemplate that the separation of the bargaining units in
their negotiations with the Company and their day to day activ-
ities will be one of fact, not merely form .. .
Accordingly, we find that all watchmen and guards employed by
the Company excluding Lloyd E. Clark, George Goodrick, John Han-
ley, and any other supervisory employees with authority to hire, pro-
mote, 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 mean-
ing of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
The Union herein seeks certification by the Board upon the record
made in this proceeding. While the Company does not question the
authenticity of the designations submitted by the Union to the Trial
Examiner, we are of the opinion that the question concerning repre-
sentation which has arisen can best be resolved by an election among
8 Matter,o f Dravo Corporation, 52 N. L R. B. 322.
4 Matter of Dravo Corporation, supra See also Matter of Chrysler Corporation, 44
N. L. R. B 881; Matter of The Maytag Company, 44 N. L. R. B. 1265.
682 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the employees in the appropriate unit who were employed during
the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of the Direction
of Election herein, subject to the limitations and additions set forth
in the Direction.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National
Labor Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Re-
lations Act, and pursuant to Article III, Section 9, of National Labor
Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 2, as amended, it is
hereby
DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation to ascertain representa-
tives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Indiana and Mich-
igan Electric Company, South Bend, Indiana, 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 Thirteenth 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 Reg-
ulations, among the employees in the unit found appropriate in Sec-
tion IV, above, who were employed during the pay-roll period im-
mediately 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, to determine whether or not they desire to
be represented by District 50, United Mine `Yorkers of America
(Utility Division), for the purposes of collective bargaining.
CHAIRMAN MILris took no part in the consideration, of the above
Decision and Direction of Election.