Bank Of America, N. T. & S. A., Employer And Office Employes' International Union, Local 29, Afl, Petitioner, 342 (1947)

In the Matter of BANK OF AMERICA, N. T. & S. A., EMPLOYER and OFFICE EMPLOYES' INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL 29, AFL, PETITIONER Case No. 20-R-1701.-Decided October 11, 1946 Messrs. Philip S. Ehrlich, R. J. Hecht, and George Ghiselli, all of San Francisco, Calif., for the Employer.

Tobriner & Lazarus, by Mr. Mathew 0. Tobriner, of San Francisco,

Calif., for the Petitioner.

Gladstein, Anderson, Resner, Sawyer & Edises, by Messrs. Richard Gladstein and Norman Leonard, both of San Francisco, Calif., and Mr. Richard D. Lewois, of San Francisco, Calif., for the CIO.

Mr. Sydney S. Asher, Jr., of counsel to the Board.

DECISION DIRECTION OF ELECTION AND ORDER Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at San Francisco, California, on various dates between June 6 and 28, 1946, before Robert E. Tillman, hearing officer.

Prior to the hearing, and again at the hearing, the Employer made several motions to dismiss the petition. For reasons stated hereinafter, the motions are hereby denied. At the hearing the United Office and Professional Workers of America, hereinafter referred to as the CIO, appeared and moved to intervene. The motion for intervention was granted by the hearing officer over the objections of the Employer and the Petitioner. Subsequently, the Employer moved to dismiss the CIO's intervention. All evidence introduced on behalf of the CIO was objected to by the Petitioner, but was admitted by the hearing officer. The CIO submitted no proof of representation among employees of the Employer. It relied upon its previous unsuccessful efforts to organize employees of the Employer, its representation among the employees of other banks, and upon its expectation of organizing employees of the Employer at some future time. We are of the opinion that the hearing officer erred in permitting the intervention of the CIO without any proof of representation.1 Accord1 In Matter of Swift & Company, to intervene because it did not have any representation interest in the employees affected at the time of the hearing, all of its application cards bearing dates subsequent to the date of the hearing. The position of the CIO herein is even weaker than was the IAM's position in that case, for here the CIO has not submitted any authorization cards of any date.

71 N. L R. B., No. 48.

342 343 ingly, the Employer's motion to strike the CIO's intervention is hereby granted, the hearing officer's ruling permitting the CIO to intervene is reversed, the CIO's motion for intervention is denied, and all evidence submitted on behalf of the CIO over the objections of the Petitioner is hereby stricken from the record. The other rulings of the hearing officer made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.

The record reveals that, prior to the filing of the petition, a representative of the Petitioner sought advice as to the appropriate unit from the Board's Regional Director. The Employer pointed out that the same Regional Director thereafter had control of the investigation of the petition and could have dismissed the petition without a hearing. On these grounds the Employer moved to dismiss the petition, claiming that such a procedure had 'irreparably damaged' the Employer's position with its employees and constituted a 'violation of constitutional guarantees.' Inasmuch as a representation proceeding is not an adverse proceeding against the Employer, and since it is wholly appropriate for a Regional Director to express his opinion and to give advice and guidance in such matters when requested by any party to do so, we deem the Employer's contentions to be without merit.

The Employer and the Petitioner have requested oral argument.

Both of these requests are hereby denied inasmuch as the record and briefs, in our opinion, adequately present the issues and positions of the parties.

Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations Board makes the following:

FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER The Employer is a corporation organized under the National Bank Act, engaged in a general banking business in the State of California and London, England. Its principal place of business is located at San Francisco, California. It is a member of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. As of March 30, 1946, the Employer had 494 branches and 27 facilities and operated in over 300 communities within the State of California. As of that date, its total assets were in excess of $5,500,000,000; it had on deposit in 78 banks in 28 States other than the State of California a sum exceeding $70,000,000; and 284 banks in 44 States other than the State of California had on deposit with the Employer the sum of approximately $60,000,000. During the year 1945, the Employer sent to banks outside the State of California the sum of approximately 430,000,000 in the form of notes, drafts, bills, coupons, etc., for collection.

We find that the Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.2 II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED The Petitioner is a labor organization affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, claiming to represent employees of the Employer.

3. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION The Employer has refused to recognize the Petitioner as the exclusive bargaining representative of employees of the Employer.

   The Employer moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that neither in its request for recognition nor in the petition filed herein did the Petitioner state that it represented a majority of the Employer's employees, and that therefore no question concerning representation has arisen. We do not agree with the Employer's contentions.

   Under an almost identical factual situation, in the Semon Bache case,3 we rejected similar arguments.

   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.

4. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT The Petitioner seeks either: (1) a unit composed of all of the employees in 33 designated branches located in the 'East Bay Metropolitan Area' or (2) two separate units composed of the employees in Branch Supervision Districts Numbers 10 and 11, respectively, or, (3) a single unit composed of the employees in both of these Branch Supervision Districts. The Employer, without revealing what unit it considers to be appropriate, maintains that all of the units suggested by the Petitioner are inappropriate.

   1. Operations of the Employer The Employer carries on its operations through its 494 branches located in over 300 communities scattered throughout the State of California. Control over this vast system is centralized at the head office located in San Francisco, California, where the general ledger for the whole system is maintained. Policy making and rules of pro2Matter of Bank of America National Trust & Savings Association, and SMatter of Semon Bache t Company, cedure originate with the so-called 'senior management' and are transmitted to the employees of the branches by means of several detailed books known as the Standard Practice Manual, the Pro Forma Book, and the Arrangement Book.

      All employees are paid by checks issued from the head office, which are...