United Aircraft Corp.

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.