The Carborundum Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 31, 1951

95 N.L.R.B. 897 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

THE CARBORUNDUM COMPANY 897
will be taken to have indicated their desire to join the firemen in a
single unit.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
THE CARBORUNDUM COMPANY and UNITED GAS, COKE AND CHEMICAL
WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER. Case No . 3-RC-617.
July 31,1951
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 William Naimark, 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 [Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Reynolds].
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 organization involved claims to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of 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 to represent a unit of the Employer's fieelneu-
watchmen employed at its executive building. The Employer contends
that because the Petitioner is the present representative of its plant
production and maintenance employees, it cannot under Section 9 (b)
(3) of the Act represent its executive building firemen-watchmen.
The Petitioner has been the representative of a unit of some 4,000
of the Employer's production and maintenance employees for about
10 years. The executive building is a structure containing 3 stories
and a basement, located within the plant area, and providing office
space for approximately 700 employees who perform the Employer's
executive and office functions. The 5 firemen-watchmen involved in
this proceeding are stationed in the basement of the executive build-
3 This section provides in part that . . no labor organization shall he certified
as representative of employees in a bargaining unit of guards if such organization admits
to membership , or is affiliated directly or indirectly with an organization which admits
to membership , employees other than guards."
95 NLRB No. 98.
898 DECISIONS -OF-,.NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ing, at or near the boiler room, their time being so divided that at
least one of them is always on duty. '
Four of these employees 2 spend their working time on a large
variety of duties. During the period from September to May of each
year, they tend the boilers in the executive building heating plant,
firing them and removing the ashes. Also, during the entire year,
they deliver mail and packages to the various offices,, and perform
numerous other custodial and maintenance tasks. During the -times
when the office' employees are not at the building, they make hourly
rounds, punching clocks at six or seven stations throughout .the build-
ing. It takes not more than 15 minutes of each hour to perform
these watchmen's duties. They are not deputized, uniformed, or
armed. Their immediate supervisor also has charge of other em-
ployees of the office building. As these 'four employees do not spend
more than 50 percent of their time performing plant-protection duties,
we find that they are not guards within the meaning of the Act, and
shall permit them to vote on the question whether they want to be
represented by the Petitioner.3.
The fifth fireman-watchman,4 however; spends about 90 percent of
his time on watchman's .duties and only a small fraction of his time on
other,services.5 As this employee spends more than half of his time
in plant-protection duties, we shall exclude him as a guard from
the, voting group hereinafter described.6
We shall direct that an election be held among the firemen-watchmen
employed at the Employer's Niagara Falls, New York, executive
building,' excluding guards, office clerical employees, all other em-
ployees, and supervisors as . defined in the Act. As these firemen-
watchmen are essentially maintenance or custodial employees, - we
believe that they should properly be part of the production and main-
tenance unit at the Employer's plant that the Petitioner now repre-
sents.7 However, we shall make no final unit determination at this
time, but shall first ascertain the desires of these employees as ex-
pressed in the election hereinafter directed. If a majority of the em-
ployees in this voting group vote for the Petitioner they will be taken
z William Clingersmith , Thomas Bailey , William . Ritchie, and Franklin Clark.
Wiley Mfg., Inc., 92 NLRB 40. ' Cf. Fruit Growers' Supply Company, 94 NLRB 909.
4 William Ferguson.
6 The record indicated that this employee has been recalled from his retirement to sub-
stitute temporarily for a discharged fireman-watchman , and that he is expected to be
relieved from his job as soon as a suitable replacement is hired. He is not expected to
work after this summer.
6 Wiley Mfg ., Inc., supra ; Fruit Growers ' Supply Company, supra.
7 See Southern Desk Company , 92 NLRB No . 137; California Sphay-Chemical Corp., 86
NLRB 453; Victor Chemical Works, 85 NLRB 495; Evans Milling Company, 85: NLRBW391_
FEDERAL COMPRESS & WAREHOUSE COMPANY 899
to have indicated their desire to be bargained for as part of the pro-
duction and maintenance unit represented by the Petitioner.8
[Text of. Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
s Great Lakes Pipe Line Company, 92.NLRB 583.
FEDERAL COMPRESS & WAREHOUSE COMPANY and UNITED GAS, COKE
CHEMICAL WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER. Case No.
33-RC-3 5. July 31, 1951
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 John E. Cienki, 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, Reynolds, and Styles].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer, engaged in the business of compressing and ware-
housing cotton, is a Delaware corporation with its main office at
Memphis, Tennessee, and with plants in the States of Arkansas,
Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Tennessee, and Texas. The Em-
ployer's two plants at Pine Bluff, Arkansas, are alone involved in this
case. All of the Employer's plants operate under the direction of the
Employer's Memphis office, which determines the Employer's policies
and controls its labor relations. Many of 'the plants are served by
interstate rail carriers. The Employer does not purchase or sell any
cotiton but receives it from the owner for processing, storage, and
transshipment. A substantial proportion of the cotton is moved
interstate on.leaving the Employer's plants.
The Employer contends that it is not engaged in commerce and is
therefore not subject to the Act. In support of this contention the
Employer cites Federal Compress Co. Y. McLean,' in which the Su-
preme Colirt'held that a license, tax imposed by the State of Mississippi
on the instant Employer for the privilege of operating'a cotton com-
press and warehouse within the State did- not violate constitutional
1.291 U . S. 17 (1933).
95 NLRB No. 88.
9619 74=52=vol. 95--58