Briggs Manufacturing Co.

74 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the cutter grinders and the tool crib grinders, as well as the tool crib attendants,4 are under the immediate supervision of a single foreman, and under the general supervision of the methods engineer and his assistant, who have charge of the toolroom and the Employer's methods department. . Under all the circumstances, and particularly in view of the present work location of the tool crib grinders and their community of interest with the cutter grinders and the other toolroom employees, we believe that the tool crib grinders may, if they so desire, be repre- sented in a unit with the toolroom employees. However, as they have been represented by the Intervenor for a number of years in its production unit, we shall afford the tool crib grinders an opportunity to express, in the election herein directed, whether they desire to continue to be represented by the Intervenor in the production unit or wish to be represented in a unit with the toolroom employees .6 We shall direct an election among all the Employer's tool crib grinders at its Toledo, Ohio, plant, excluding all other employees and all supervisors as defined in the Act. If a majority of these employees vote for the Petitioner, they will be taken to have indicated their desire to be included in the toolroom unit now represented by the Petitioner, and the Regional Director conducting the election herein, is instructed to issue a certificate of results of election to that effect. If the majority of these employees vote for the Intervenor, they will be taken to have indicated their desire to continue to be represented in the production unit now represented by the Intervenor, and the Regional Director will issue a certificate of results of election to such effect. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this volume.] 4 Although the tool crib attendants thus share common supervision with some of the toolroom employees, they hand out tools and other materials only to the production and maintenance employees. There is a separate tool crib that serves the toolroom , with its own attendant. A General Electric Co., 97 NLRB 1246. BRIGGS MANUFACTURING COMPANY and GARRARD C. REED, AN INDI- VIDUAL, PETITIONER and UNITED PLANT GUARD WORKERS OF AMER- ICA, LooAL 114. Case No. 7RD-1 925. October 22,195° Decision and Order Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Emil C. Farkas, hearing 101 NLRB No. 18. BRIGGS MANUFACTURING COMPANY 75 officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. 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 Petitioner is an employee of the Employer. The Union, a labor organization, is the currently reorganized bargaining represent- ative of the employees involved in this proceeding.,, 3. No 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 for the following reasons : The Petitioner asserts that the fire inspectors 2 employed at the Employer's Detroit, Michigan, plants are not "guards" within the meaning of Section 9 (b) (3) of the Act, and that the current contract between the Employer and the Union, covering both guards and fire inspectors in a single unit, cannot therefore serve as a bar to the decertification petition herein. On the other hand, the Employer and the Union assert that the fire inspectors are "guards" within the statutory definition, and that their current contract bars any election at this time. The record discloses that the Employer's Detroit plants employ approximately 175 guards and 9 hourly paid fire inspectors. The fire inspectors, for whom the Petitioner seeks decertification, work full time on the detection and prevention of fires. Most of their day is spent checking fire extinguishers, hoses, and automatic sprinkling devices. In the course of their tours the fire inspectors note all fire hazards and correct them themselves or report them to a plant foreman or to the assistant director of fire prevention, their immediate super- visor. Further, it appears that it takes about 6 months to train a fire inspector, and there is little or no interchange between the fire inspec- tors and plant guards. The fire inspectors and plant guards each con- stitute a separate department with separate departmental heads. Fire inspectors wear badges but are not uniformed. They have authority to suggest that hazardous operations be suspended until necessary fire precautions can be taken, but they report matters of discipline to the appropriate departmental supervisor. At the end of each day the fire inspectors prepare a report on their day's work for the assistant director of fire inspection. 1 On August 18, 1952, more than 3 months after the conclusion of the hearing herein, International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft & Agricultural Implement Workers of America, CIO, moved to intervene on the grounds that the Board's ruling on the current contract between the Employer and the Union might adversely affect most of the existing contracts in the automobile industry . That motion is hereby denied as untimely. 2 The terms "fire marshal" and "fire inspector" were used interchangeably during the course of the hearing. 76 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD On the other hand, the Employer's plant guards, who are uniformed, patrol the plants to enforce plant rules. When the plants are in opera- tion the guards are stationed at the plant gates to check employees and equipment. When the production operations are shut down, the guards spend most of their time patroling. Although they occasionally report fire hazards through the plant protection department, the guards do not have the technical training necessary to carry out the duties of the fire inspectors. As it is clear from the record that the Employer's fire inspectors work exclusively on fire detection and prevention, we find, as we have in a number of recent cases, that they are not "guards" within the meaning of the Act 3 It follows therefore that the bargaining unit covered by the current contract is inappropriate.4 However, in the unusual circumstances of this case that fact alone is not a sufficient basis for finding the existence of a question concerning representation. In our view the Union has taken the position that it does not seek to represent employees who are not guards within the meaning of the Act. This position, which the Union has uniformly adhered to in Board proceedings, is understandable, because Section 9 (b) (3) of the Act provides that no labor organization can be certified as the bar- gaining agent for "guards" if it admits to membership employees who are not "guards." As we have determined here that the Employ- er's fire inspectors are not "guards," we construe the Union's position as a waiver of its claim to depresent only the employees involved in this proceeding. Under these circumstances, we conclude that there is not now before the Board any question concerning the representation of the Employer's fire inspectors, and we shall therefore dismiss the peti- tion herein. Order IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the instant petition be, and it hereby is, dismissed. 3 Lockheed Aircraft Corporation, Georgia Division, 100 NLRB No. 147; Hawthorne School of Aeronautics, 98 NLRB 1098 ; West Virginia Pulp & Paper Company, 96 NLRB 871 ; Argonne National Laboratories, S9 NLRB 1236. 4In 1948 the Union was certified in Case No . 7-RC-229 as the bargaining representative for the employees in the unit covered by the current contract. However, that unit was established pursuant to a stipulation between the Union and the Employer, and without a Board hearing As we have found from the testimony taken at the bearing herein that fire inspectors or fire marshals are not "guards" within the meaning of the Act, the Board, on its own motion , will amend its certification in Case No. 7-RC-229 to exclude them from the bargaining unit.