Farrington Manufacturing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 29, 1953

105 N.L.R.B. 195 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

FARRINGTON MANUFACTURING COMPANY 195
The Petitioner , Perry, had been president of Local Union
No. 12,560, for 5 years, but was expelled for 99 years and life
because he was largely responsible for bringing about the
employees ' disaffection from the UMW and affiliation with the
Union.
At the time Perry initiated these proceedings , Mike Smijon,
identified by witnesses as the district representative of the
UMW, was attempting to organize the employees for the UMW.
Perry testified that he obtained a supply of mimeographed
decertification petition forms from his attorney , and that he
did not circulate any petitions himself, nor obtain any signatures
thereon, but had this done by committeemen who were not
identified . These forms were identical with the mimeographed
forms that Smijon had given to employees to circulate except
that a typewritten sentence had been added to the forms used
by Perry stating that "We authorize Reginald C. Perry, a
fellow employee , to file a petition with the NLRB for an
election."
The record shows that Smijon visited employees at their
homes to solicit their signatures to a decertification petition,
and that he offered money , liquor, and the use of his car to
employees to sign or to circulate this petition . Smijon told
one employee that the purpose of the petition was to get
30 percent or more so we can have an election ," and told
another employee that " we will use force for the company to
recognize us."
Three witnesses testified as to various occasions on which
they had observed Perry and Smijon together engaged in con-
versation . Another witness , Allan Craig , stated that he was
with Perry when they walked out of the plant , that they talked
to Smijon, and that both Perry and Craig received petition
forms from Smijon although Craig did not see the language
on the forms given to Perry . Although Perry testified that
he knew Smijon only by sight , he admitted conversing with
him in front of the plant on one occasion , although he denied
that their conversation dealt with der ertification of the Union.
Under all the circumstances of this case , we find that Perry
was in fact acting on behalf of a noncomplying labor organiza-
tion, and we shall therefore dismiss the petition.3
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
3SeeTimm Industries. Inc., 104NLRB 359; Knife River Coal Mining Company, 91 NLRB 176.
FARRINGTON MANUFACTURING COMPANY and LODGE 860,
DISTRICT 38, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MA-
CHINISTS, AFL, Petitioner. Case No. 1-RC-3122. May 29,
1953
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before George A.
105 NLRB No. 34.
196 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Sweeney, hearing officer . The hearing officer's rulings made
at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby
affirmed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the
Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to
a three-member panel [Members Houston , Murdock, and
Peterson].
Upon the entire record in this case , the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the mean-
ing of the Act.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent
employees of the Employer.
3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the
representation of employees of the Employer within the mean-
ing of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, for
the following reasons:
The Board ' s records show that on July 10 , 1951, after a
consent election , Lodge 264 of District 38, International As-
sociation of Machinists , AFL, was certified as representative
of the production and maintenance employees at the Employer's
Jamaica Plains, Massachusetts, plants Nos . 1, 2, and 3, ex-
cluding, among others, guards . The record in this proceeding
shows that on November 8, 1951, the Employer and Lodge 860,
the Petitioner, executed a 2-year contract covering the em-
ployees in this unit.'
The Petitioner here requests certification as representative
of a unit composed of the Employer ' s firemen-watchmen. The
Employer opposes the petition , asserting that these employees
spend the majority of their time in watchmen ' s duties and hence
are guards and cannot be represented by a union which also
represents employees other than guards .' The Employer
further contends however , that if these employees in fact
spend more than 50 percent of their time in firemen's duties
and hence are not guards within the meaning of the Act, they
are thus maintenance employees within the scope of the pro-
duction and maintenance unit that the Petitioner now repre-
sents, and for that reason the petition should be dismissed.
In plant 1 , there are 3 watchmen - firemen who , between them,
cover the second and third shifts from Monday through Friday
and the full 24 hours on Saturday and Sunday . In plant 2, there
are 4 watchmen-firemen who work on a rotating schedule,
covering all shifts throughout the entire week. In plant 2,
during the first shift on weekdays , these employees perform
only firemen's duties. However, during the other shifts in each
plant , the watchmen - firemen divide their time between making
scheduled rounds, punching time clocks and checking windows
and doors enroute, and tending the equipment in the boiler-
room. In both plants, they also perform some miscellaneous
duties such as opening doors and gates, and in plant 2 they fill
tanks with water , light a coffee urn, and make other prepara-
1 The record does not explain the variation between the designation of the certified local
and that of the local which executed the contract.
2 Section 9 (b) of the Labor Management Relations Act.
FARRINGTON MANUFACTURING COMPANY 197
tions early in the morning for the beginning of work by the
production -employees . In plant 1, they serve door duty at the
end of the day and evening shifts on weekdays , and during the
morning on Saturday . In this plant on weekdays , rounds are
made only during the hours from 5 p . m. to about 5 : 30 a. m.,
although the watchmen -firemen are on duty during a somewhat
longer period . In plant 2, the watchmen - firemen are required
to answer the doorbell during the period from 11 p. m. to 7 a. m.
and admit authorized persons to the plant.'
The principal disagreements between the parties concern the
amount of time spent on door duty by the watchmen - firemen
in plant 1, and the portions of time spent on making rounds in
each of the plants . The testimony of a watchman - fireman em-
ployed in plant 1 discloses that on weekdays the door duty
involves 1 period of 15 minutes at 5 p. m. and another period
of about 5 minutes at 11 p. m. watching employees leaving the
plant at the close of their shifts ." As to the length of time
required to make a round, the testimony of a watchman-fire-
man employed in plant 1 indicates that in this plant , although
the first round of each shift takes somewhat longer, ' all the
other rounds take approximately 20 minutes ., The testimony of
2 watchmen -firemen from plant 2 shows that in that plant for
every round after the first , 20 to 25 minutes are required.7
Upon the entire record, we are satisfied that the watchmen-
firemen do not, in either plant, spend the majority of their
time in tasks related to plantprotection or safety of persons on
the Employer ' s premises . We therefore find that they are not
3During other hours, guards provided by an independent protective agency are on duty
Thus, one such guard is stationed in the receiving room during the day shift to prevent
pilfering, and another guard is stationed in a cubicle at the front gates from 2 to 11 p. m to
check employees as they go into and out of the plant.
4 Most of the employees are employed on the day shift and leave at 3 or at 5 p. in. Some
are employed on the second shift which ends at 11 p m.
5 The watchmen -firemen check the condition of the plant and offices more thoroughly at
the beginning of their shifts to make sure that everything is in order
6The plant engineer of plant 1 testified that the distance traveled in making each round
in that plant is 2,600 feet (approximately one-half mile ), and that in estimating the time
required he found that it required 30 minutes of brisk walking , without stopping to punch
clocks, to cover this distance . We regard the testimony of the watchmen - firemen as the
more credible
7 The plant engineer of plant 2 testified that except for the rounds at 5 and 11 p. m , which
take longer because they are at the beginning of a shift, each round takes an average of 25
to 30 minutes.
The Employer also introduced in evidence a job description and two "schedules " purporting
to show the amounts of time spent by the watchmen - firemen in both plants in their various
duties Testimony of the Employer ' s personnel manager shows, however , that these are not
part of the Employer ' s ordinary records but were specially prepared for the purposes of
this proceeding . The source of the material they contain is not revealed, except that each
plant engineer testified that he was consulted in the preparation of the "schedule " relating
to his plant The plant engineers made no further reference to these exhibits in their testi-
mony and did not explain the basis of estimation or computation of the amounts of time
attributed to the different duties. In these circumstances , we regard these exhibits as not
possessing independent evidentiary value, and have disregarded them insofar as they do not
conform to other testimony offered by the parties at the hearing.
198 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
guards within the meaning of the Act . I Rather we find that they
are a classification similar to the "standby fireman, " and the
boiler engineer in plant 1 , who are recognized by the parties
as being part of the existing production and maintenance unit.
As the watchmen -firemen are thus part of that unit , and as it
does not appear that any issue is herein dispute other than the
question of their status as guards , above discussed , we find
that no question exists concerning their representation. We
shall therefore dismiss the petition.
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
8 Trenton Foods, Inc., 101 NLRB 1769; Sunday School Publishing Board, National Baptist
Convention, USA, Inc., 100 NLRB No. 193; Wiley Mfg. Inc., 92 NLRB 40.
HOMESTAKE MINING COMPANY and UNITED STEEL-
WORKERS OF AMERICA, C. I.O., Petitioner . Case No.
18-RC-1839. May 29, 1953
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Alan Bruce,
hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the
hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby
affirmed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the
Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case
to a three -member panel [Members Houston, Murdock, and
Peterson.].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds:'
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning
of the Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent
certain employees of the Employer.' ,
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the
representation of certain employees of the Employer within
the meaning of Section 9 (c)(1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the
Act.
4. The appropriate unit:
The Petitioner seeks a unit consisting of all production and
maintenance employees in the Employer's Lead, South Dakota,
operations , including the deadwood slime plant employees,
and the Kirk power station employees , but excluding the em-
ployees at the Spearfish sawmill, the three hydropower plants,
the Hanna pumping plant , and the logging operations conducted
1 The request of the Employer for oral argument is denied inasmuch as the record and
briefs adequately and fully present the issues and positions of the parties.
2At the hearings United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, A.F.L., was
permitted to intervene.
105 NLRB No. 18.