General Electric Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 14, 1949

85 N.L.R.B. 1316 (N.L.R.B. 1949)

In the Matter of GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, EMPLOYER and HANFORD
GUARDS UNION, LOCAL #21, INTERNATIONAL GUARD UNION OF
AMERICA, PETITIONER
Case No.19-l?C-314.Decided September 14,1949
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing in this case was held at Rich-
land, Washington, on June 8 and 29, before Patrick H. Walker, hear-
ing 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 National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Members Reynolds, Murdock, and
Gray] .
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. By virtue of a cost-plus-fixed-fee contract with the United States
Government the Employer, a New York corporation, operates and
maintains the Hanford Project at Richland, Washington. At the
direction of the Atomic Energy Commission certain products are
-manufactured in connection with the development of atomic energy,
which products, upon completion, are delivered to the Government
for its exclusive use.
The Hanford project is a well-defined area. In addition to the
manufacturing operations, the village of Richland is included in the
project.2 Among other obligations under its contract with the Atomic
Energy Commission, the Employer is responsible for the maintenance
and operation of the village of Richland. These functions are closely
.analogous to those performed by municipal corporations elsewhere.
Residences for employees are situated in the village as well as admin-
istrative offices of the Government and of the Employer; and service
and business establishments are operated by subcontractors who have
.contracted with the Employer for the purpose of serving the residents
of the village.
' The Employer' s motion to dismiss is denied for reasons hereinafter stated.
2 For purposes of this proceeding , this also includes an area known as North Richland.
85 N. L. R. B., No. 218.
1316'
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY 1317
Title to all buildings, materials, and equipment used in connection
with the Hanford Project is vested in the Government. During the
last 12-month period the materials purchased by the Employer for
and on behalf of the Government outside the State of Washington
exceeded $100,000. For reasons of national security no monetary
value is placed on the products manufactured at the Hanford Project.
The Employer neither admits nor denies that it is engaged in ac-
tivities that affect interstate commerce. We find, however, that the
Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.3
2. The labor organization named below claims to represent the
guards employed by the Employer at the Hanford Project, Richland,
Washington.4
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the represen-
tation of employees of the Employer, within the meaning of Section
9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Petitioner seeks certification as the exclusive bargaining
representative of all "guards" 5 employed by the Employer at the
Hanford Project, Richland, Washington, including the patrolmen for
the village of Richland together with the patrolmen who guard the
plant. The Employer opposes such unit upon the ground that to
permit collective bargaining by a union for the plant patrolmen would
not be conducive to national security. The Employer further con-
tends that the unit sought by the Petitioner is inappropriate upon
the ground of insufficient community of interest between the village
patrolmen and the plant patrolmen.
With respect to the Employer's first contention, we perceive no
conflict between self-organization of the guards for purposes of
collective bargaining and the faithful performance of their duty.
Moreover, we cannot assume that the Petitioner will make demands
upon its members so as to decrease their loyalty and efficiency in the
performance of their obligations to the United States Government
and the Employer. If there is any danger that the patrolmen may
not faithfully perform their duties in the interest of national security,
the remedy is not in the denial to the patrolmen of their statutory right
to organize for purposes of collective bargaining. The remedy, if any,
lies within the penal laws enacted by Congress for deterring and
punishing disloyalty and infidelity concerning the atomic energy
8 See Matter of Carbide and Carbon Chemicals Corporation , 79 N. L. R. B. 83; Matter
of Monsanto Chemical Company, 76 N. L. R. B. 767, and Matter of Carbide and Carbon
Chemical Corporation , 73 N. L. R. B. 134.
* The Petitioner has no members other than employees who are guards and is not directly
or indirectly affiliated with any other union which admits to membership employees other
than guards.
a The Employer has no employees classified as "guards ," all employees who would come
within the definition of guards are classified as "patrolmen."
13] 8 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
process. We have, in the past, recognized the right of other employees
working in connection with the atomic energy program to organize
for purposes of collective bargaining,6 and we know of no reason why
such right should be denied the patrolmen herein involved. Accord-
ingly, we find no merit in this contention.
There remains for consideration the further contention of the
Employer that the village patrolmen may not appropriately be in-
cluded in a bargaining unit with the plant patrolmen.7 The village
patrolmen are under the immediate supervision of the Community
Patrol Division Chief S who is under the supervision of the Richland
Community Divisions Manager who, in turn, is responsible to the
general manager of the Hanford Project. The village patrolmen,
like the plant patrolmen, are uniformed, deputized, and armed. The
village patrolmen are charged with the protection of all property
within the village area, and the protection and safety of persons
therein. In carrying out these functions the village patrolmen duties
are analogous to those of municipal policemen elsewhere. They en-
force rules of the Employer and the Atomic Energy Commission, the
laws of Benton County, and the State of Washington. Because the
village patrolmen protect the village property of the Employer and
the safety of persons therein, it is clear that they are guards within
the meaning of the Act.'
During April 1949 the number of patrolmen at the Hanford Project
was reduced. The reduction in force was made on a seniority basis
covering all patrolmen. This necessitated the transfer of village
patrolmen to jobs of plant patrolmen. Employment qualifications
for employment of both village and plant patrolmen are the same.
While the plant patrolmen are instructed in the use of a greater variety
of firearms, they and the village patrolmen are given similar basic
training; both have the same base pay; 10 and they receive the same
vacation and retirement benefits. In view of the foregoing we are
of the opinion that both the village and plant patrolmen have sufficient
interests in common to be included appropriately in a single unit for
purposes of collective bargaining.
8 See cases cited in footnote 3, supra.
° It is apparently conceded that the plant patrolmen are guards within the meaning of
the Act.
8 Prior to February 1, 1948 , both village and plant patrolmen were under the combined
supervision of the Chief of the Plant Guard and Community Patrol.
8 Section 9 (b) (3) of the Act provides :
That the Board shall not . . . decide that any unit is appropriate . .. If it includes,
together with other employees , any individual employed as a guard to protect property
of the employer or to protect the safety of persons on the employer's premises. [Em-
phasis supplied.]
10 Plant patrolmen receive additional pay for planned 3 hours overtime per week and the
plant patrolmen who work in certain isolated areas also receive extra pay.
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY 1319
We find that all guards including the patrolmen for the village of
Richland and plant patrolmen employed by the Employer at Hanford
Project, Richland, Washington, but excluding all other employees, and
supervisors as defined by the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for
purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9
(b) of the Act.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining with the Employer, an election by secret
ballot shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later than 30
days from the date of this Direction, under the direction and super-
vision of the Regional Director for the Region in which this case was
heard, and subject to Sections 203.61 and 203.62 of National Labor
Relations Board Rules and Regulations, among the employees in the
unit found appropriate in paragraph numbered 4, above, who were em-
ployed during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of
this Direction of Election, including employees who did not work dur-
ing said pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation or tempo-
rarily laid off, but excluding those employees who have since quit or
been discharged for cause and have not been rehired or reinstated prior
to the date of the election, and also excluding employees on strike who
are not entitled to reinstatement, to determine whether or not they
desire to be represented, for purposes of collective bargaining, by
Hanford Guards Union, Local #21, International Guard Union of
America.