United Aircraft Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 23, 1953

102 N.L.R.B. 556 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

556 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of
collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, and to refrain from
any or all such activities except to the extent that such right may be affected
by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition
of employment as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
WE WILL OFFER to the employees named below immediate and full reinstate-
ment to their former or substantially equivalent positions without prejudice
to any seniority or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed, and make
them whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result of the discrimination.
Kenneth Myers Clayton L. House
Virginia Sweet Walter Plas
Allen E. Highman
All our employees are free to become or remain members of the above-
named union or any other labor organization. We will not discriminate in regard
to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment against
any employee because of membership in or activity on behalf of any such labor
organization.
THE RIDGE TOOL COMPANY,
Employer
By --------------------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
Dated ------------ -------
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must
not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
CHANCE VOUGHT AIRCRAFT DIVISION, UNITED AIRCRAFT CORPORATION
and INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED PLANT GUARD WORKERS OF
AMERICA AND ITS AMALGAMATED PLANT GUARD LOCAL No. 257,
U. P. G. W. A., PETITIONER. Case No. 16-RC-1208. January 23,
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 Edwin Youngblood,
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, Styles, 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 organization involved claims to represent certain
employees of the Employer.
1 The name of the Employer appears in the caption as amended at the hearing.
102 NLRB No. 54.
CHANCE VOUGHT AIRCRAFT DIVISION 557
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.
The Petitioner seeks a guard unit consisting of the hourly rated
employees in the guard group at the Employer's Dallas, Texas, plant.
The Employer contends that the unit requested is inappropriate be-
cause it does not include the employees in the fire group who, accord-
ing to the Employer, are also guards within the meaning of the Act.
There is no history of collective bargaining for any of the employees
involved herein.
The plant protection section at the Employer's Dallas plant is in
part comprised of a guard group and a fireman group 2 The em-
ployees in both groups work under the general supervision of the
superintendent of plant protection. The approximately 88 hourly
rated employees in the guard group are principally engaged in pro-
tecting the Employer's property against theft and sabotage and pre-
venting unauthorized persons from entering its plant. They also
watch for and report fires and fire hazards. These employees per-
form their duties at various posts on the Employer's premises, in-
cluding the plant entrance, and on escorts, car patrols, and night
patrols in connection with cleaning operations. They are uniformed
and usually armed, and some of them are deputized. As indicated
above, the parties agree, and we find, that the hourly rated employees
in the Employer's guard group are guards within the statutory
definition.
The 47 hourly rated employees in the fireman group are classified
as firemen, firemen drivers, firemen dispatchers, and firemen-assistant
maintenance technicians. The primary responsibility of these em-
ployees is to protect life and property from fire. The main function
of the 28 firemen consists of patrolling designated sections of the
plant in accordance with check-plans devised by the fireman group
for the purpose of thoroughly inspecting all fire-prevention and fire-
fighting equipment,' and to detect fires and conditions which are fire
hazards. They are required to prepare detailed reports of all unsatis-
factory conditions discovered by them. If they encounter violations
of the Employer's general rules which are designed for the protection
of life and property, such as smoking in restricted areas, the obstruc-
tion of passageways, and the removal of fire-fighting equipment, they
are authorized to take remedial action * Firemen also are assigned
Also part of the plant protection section , but not involved in this proceeding, are the
internal security investigation , personnel investigation , and fingerprinting and photographic
groups.
In the course of their tours , for example , the firemen check the condition , accessibility,
and placement of valves , water supplies , hydrants , hose houses , fire-extinguishing equip-
ment , sprinklers , and asbestos barrels.
A Those in the guard group and plant supervisors have a similar responsibility.
558 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to stand by during hazardous operations, such as welding, and may
suspend those operations for which the necessary permits have not
been obtained. They act as hosemen at fires. Firemen may also be
called upon in emergencies to aid in preserving order and quelling
disturbances. When not on patrol, or on special assignment, they are
on the alert at the fire station. The 12 firemen drivers, 5 firemen dis-
patchers, and 2 assistant maintenance technicians may be assigned
functions similar to those performed by the firemen. However, the
firemen drivers are chiefly responsible for handling fire engine equip-
ment; the firemen dispatchers are concerned mainly with answering
calls from firemen, routing calls for members of the guard group, and
dispatching fire-fighting equipment; and the assistant maintenance
technicians are engaged primarily in maintaining fire-fighting equip-
ment, such as the underground sprinkler system and fire extinguishers.
All the employees in the fireman group wear uniforms, which are
different from those worn by the guard group, but, unlike employees
in the latter group, none are armed or deputized. There is no inter-
change of employees between the two groups.
It is plain from the foregoing, and the record as a whole, that the
employees in the fireman group are engaged predominantly in fire-
prevention and fire-fighting duties which do not involve the enforce-
ment of rules against employees and others and are therefore nonguard
in character.5 Accordingly, as the guard duties which they may per-
form do not constitute a dominant aspect of their total work pattern,
we find that the members of the fireman group are not guards within
the definition of Section 9 (b) (3) of the Act.' Contrary to the
Employer, therefore, we shall exclude them from the guard unit found
appropriate herein.
The parties agree, and we find, that the captain, 3 lieutenants, and
3 sergeants of the guard group are supervisors within the meaning of
the Act. We shall therefore exclude them from the unit. Contrary to
the Employer, the Petitioner would also exclude as supervisors the
5 corporals of the guard group.
The guard corporals spend in excess of 50 percent of their time re-
lieving other guards and substituting for guards who fail to report
for work. When not thus engaged, they spend their time answering
telephone calls at guard headquarters and in checking guard posts.
They report infraction of rules by guards and transmit instructions
to them from superior officers. Their direction of the guards is routine
in nature. They have no authority to hire, discharge, promote, disci-
s Briggs Manufacturing Company, 101 NLRB 74 ; West Virginia Pulp & Paper Com-
pany, 96 NLRB 871 ; Argonne National Laboratories, 89 NLRB 1236 ; Hawthorne School of
Aeronautics, 98 NLRB 1098 ; Wilson c6 Co ., Inc., 81 NLRB 504.
6 Argonne National Laboratories , supra; Wilson d Co ., Inc., supra; Radio Corporation
of America, 78 NLRB 826.
PENNSYLVANIA GLASS SAND CORPORATION 559
Aline, or assign guards, nor the authority effectively to recommend
such action. Under all the circumstances, we find that the corporals
of the guard group are not supervisors as defined in the Act, and we
shall include them in the unit.
We find that all hourly rated employees in the guard group at the
Employer's Dallas, Texas, plant, including the guard corporals, but
excluding the employees in the fireman group, all other employees,
the guard captain, lieutenants, and sergeants, and all other supervisors
as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes
of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the
Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
PENNSYLVANIA GLASS SAND CORPORATION and GLASS BOTTLE BLOWERS
ASSOCIATION OF THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA, AFL AND FEDERA-
TION OF GLASS, CERAMIC & SILICA SAND WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO,
PETITIONERS Cases Nos. 5-EC-1188 and 5-RC-1205. January 23,
1953
Decision, Order, and Direction of Election
Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before
Louis Aronin, 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 Styles].
Upon the entire record is 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 employees
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) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Employer is engaged in the quarrying of sand rock and the
processing of it into industrial sand. It operates plants at Berkeley
Springs, West Virginia; Mapleton Depot and McVeyton, Pennsyl-
vania; Newport, New Jersey; and in Missouri and Oklahoma. The
Employer is presently engaged in construction work at all of the above
plants with the exception of those located in Missouri and Oklahoma.
This construction work is performed exclusively by the Employer's
102 NLRB No. 51.