Carbide and Carbon Chemicals Corp.

In the Matter Of CARBIDE AND CARBON CHEMICALS CORPORATION, EMPLOYER and UNITED GAS, COKE AND CHEMICAL WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER Case No. 1O-RC-76.-Decided September 02, 1948 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before a hearing officer of the National Labor Relations Board. 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-man panel consisting of the undersigned Board Members.* Upon the entire record iri this case, the Board finds : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act., 2. The Petitioner and Atomic Trades and Labor Council, AFL, hereinafter called the Intervenor, are labor organizations claiming 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) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The Petitioner and Intervenor seek a unit consisting of all employees in the fire department of the Employer's Y-12 plant at Oak Ridge, Tennessee, including the fire inspectors, the fire truck operators, the ambulance drivers, fire equipment dispatchers, fire fighters, and fire extinguisher servicemen, but excluding the fire lieu- tenants and other supervisors. Both unions admit employees other than guards to membership. The Employer contends : (a) The employees in the proposed unit are "guards" within the meaning of Section 9 (b) (3) of the Act and neither the Petitioner nor *Houston, Reynolds , and Gray. See Matter of Carbtide and Carbon Chemicals Corporation, 73 N. L.kR. B. 134. 79 N. L. R. B., No. 112. 932 CARBIDE AND CARBON CHEMICALS CORPORATION 933 the Intervenor may represent them, as both unions admit to member- ship employees other than guards. • (b) In any event, the only appropriate unit is one comprising all the production and maintenance employees in the plant. (c) If the proposed unit is deemed appropriate notwithstanding the two foregoing objections, the fire lieutenants should not be excluded from the unit as supervisors. We shall consider these contentions in order : (a) The employees in the proposed unit are primarily engaged in preventing and fighting fires. They are not deputized or militarized,, and the plant has a regular guard force. However, in case of fire the employees in the fire department are required to prevent unauthor- ized persons from entering the fire area. The "fire fighters," more- over, spend a major part of their time patrolling buildings, primarily to detect fire hazards, but incidentally to apprehend persons who lack proper identification. In emergencies the employees in the fire de- partment are used to supplement the regular guard force in quelling disturbances. The fire inspectors occasionally admit visitors to locked buildings and guard the entrance to such buildings until the visitor leaves. The record does not demonstrate, however, that any of the em- ployees in the fire department spends a major part of his time, or is primarily employed, as a "guard." Accordingly, we find that the fire department employees are not "guards" within the meaning of Sec- tion 9 (b) (3) of the amended Act.2 (b) As to the Employer's second contention that these employees may not of themselves constitute an appropriate unit, it appears that they are stationed in a separate building and have separate immediate supervision. We have previously found appropriate a separate unit of fire fighters and firemen at another plant operated by the Employer at Oak Ridge, Tennessee.3 We, therefore, find that the unit sought by the Petitioner in the instant case is appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining. (c) The parties disagree as to the supervisory status of the fire lieutenants. The record shows that each lieutenant acts as a group leader, with four fire truck operators and two fire fighters in his group. The fire lieutenant does the same work as the fire fighters, and has no power effectively to recommend a change in the employment status of other employees, except possibly when he assumes the duties of his 2 Matter of Carbide and Carbon Chemicals Corporation, 79 N. L. R. B. 83; Matter of Radio Corporation of America, 76 N. L. R. B. 826; Matter of Steelweld Equipment Company, Inc., 76 N. L. R. B. 831. 3 Matter of Carbide and Carbon Chemical Corporation , 73 N. L. R. B. 134. See, also, Matter of The Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company, 78 N. L. R. B. 838. 809095-49-vol. 79-60 934 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD shift captain during the latter's absence.4 The fire lieutenants have limited authority to assign other employees to their stations during a fire, subject to the general direction of the shift captains . On other occasions they make work assignments of a routine nature. They relay orders from the shift captains to the members of their groups. On all the evidence , we find that the fire lieutenants are not "super- visors" within the meaning of the Act, as amended, and we shall in- clude them in the unit. We find that all the employees in the fire department at the Em- ployer's Y-12 plant at Oak Ridge , Tennessee, including the fire lieu- tenants, but excluding all supervisors, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining. DIRECTION OF ELECTION As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the purposes 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-Series 5, among the em- ployees in the unit found appropriate in paragraph numbered 4, above, who were employed during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of the Direction of Election, including employees who did not work during said pay-roll period because they were ill or on vaca- tion or temporarily laid off, but excluding those employees who have since quit or been discharged for cause and have not been rehired or re- instated 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 United Gas, Coke and Chemical Workers of America, CIO.5 * It was testified that the fire lieutenant assumes the duties of his shift captain when he is absent, and that the shift captain has the power effectively to recommend changes in the status of other employees . The record does not show, however, that this particular power has in fact been exercised by the fire lieutenants. The Intervenor, Atomic Trades and Labor Council, AFL , is no longer in compliance with the filing requirements of Section 9 of the Act . For this reason , we do not accord it a place on the ballot.