Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co.

900 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD CRDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petitions in Cases Nos. 15-RC-809, 15-RC-810, and 15-RC-811 be, and they hereby are, dismissed. [Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.] Member Peterson, dissenting: In this case there has been a successful 8-year bargaining history; the bargaining pattern in the tire and tube industry tends toward representation on a plantwide basis; the Em- ployer's operations are highly integrated; there is no evidence that the proposed craft groups maintained their identity as such during the period of bargaining on a more comprehensive basis; nor is there evidence that the Petitioner had obtained membership among the craft employees prior to the establish- ment of the broader unit; and the petitioning IAM does not seek only machinists and related crafts. Under these circumstances, and for the reasons more fully set forth in my dissenting opinion in the Hamilton19 case, I would dismiss the petitions herein. 19 W. C. Hamilton and Sons, 104 NLRB 627. PITTSBURGH PLATE GLASS COMPANY (MILWAUKEE PAINT DIVISION)1 and INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED PLANT GUARD WORKERS OF AMERICA, AMALGAMATED PLANT GUARD LOCAL 555,1 Petitioner. Case No. 13-RC-3203. May 11, 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 Joseph Cohen, 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 Styles and Peterson]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds: 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the mean- ing of the Act. Z. The labor organizations involved claim to represent em- ployees of the Employer. 3. The question concerning representation: International Union, United Plant Guard Workers of America, Amalgamated Plant Guard Local 555, the Petitioner herein, 1 The names of the Employer and Petitioner appear as corrected at the hearing. 104 NLRB No. 110. PITTSBURGH PLATE GLASS COMPANY 901 seeks a unit of "all watchmen performing the duties of plant guards" at the Employer's Milwaukee plant. Paint, Varnish and Lacquer Makers, Local No. 579, Brotherhood of Painters, Decorators and Paperhangers of America, AFL, the Intervenor herein, contends that its contract of October 7, 1952, which will expire in October 1954 and covers production and main- tenance employees, including "watchmen," is a bar to this proceeding. The Intervenor further asserts that the "watch- men" perform the duties of watchmen and not "guards" within the meaning of the Act, and are therefore not precluded from inclusion in a unit with production and maintenance employees. The Employer agrees with these contentions. The Petitioner contends that the "watchmen" are in fact perform- ing the duties of "guards" and therefore cannot be included in a unit with production and maintenance employees. The record shows that these employees spend almost 100 percent of their time guarding the Employer's property against theft, fire, sabotage, and other hazards. In the performance of these duties they make regular patrols throughout the plant and punch a watchman's clock. They are uniformed and wear police badges. They also serve as gatemen checking persons coming in and out of the plant. In addition, they report all violations of plant rules and regulations. On these facts, we find that the employees sought by the Petitioner are guards within the meaning of the Act.' In the American Dyewood case 5 the Board upheld a current contract as a bar to an election in a production and main- tenance unit, even though the unit covered by the contract embraced a few "guards" together with the production and maintenance employees. In finding the contract a bar, the Board stated that while Section 9 (b) (3) of the Act forbids the Board itself from establishing as appropriate a unit containing guards as well as other employees, it does not impose upon the Board a duty to police every contract volun- tarily established by the parties to determine whether they have covered the working conditions of individual employees whom the Board, if called upon to make a decision, would exclude. As the Board's contract-bar rule is aimed at stabilizing the employment relationship for the duration of a reasonable contract term, we concluded that to disrupt that relationship required "something more than a finding that several employees should not have been included in an otherwise clearly appro- priate unit." Here, however, unlike American Dyewood, where the petitioning union sought a production and maintenance unit, the employees whom we have found to be guards within the meaning of the Act are the only ones covered by the petition. The Board's principal reason for upholding the contract bar in American Dyewood is therefore not present here. Directing an election only in a unit of "guards" is entirely consistent with that decision, as it clearly does not 2 Hercules Powder Company, 89 NLRB 52. SAmerican Dyewood Company, 99 NLRB 78 (Member Houston dissenting). 283230 0 - 54 - 58 902 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD have the effect of disturbing the existing contract covering the production and maintenance employees." Under the cir- cumstances, we find the contract no bar to this proceedings A question affecting commerce exists concerning the repre- sentation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 4. For the reasons set forth in paragraph numbered 3, above, the following employees of the Employer constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act: All watchmen performing the duties of plant guards em- ployed at the Employer's Milwaukee, Wisconsin, plant, in- cluding the watchmen chiefs,' but excluding office clerical employees, production employees, all other employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] 4In Sonotone Corporation, 100 NLRB 1127, the Board dismissed a petition for a production and maintenance unit on the basis of American Dyewood. However, the Board on its own motion amended an existing certification to exclude "guards," because it found that although in the earlier case they had been included in a production and maintenance unit because the parties stipulated that they were not "guards," the record in the later case disclosed that they were in fact guards as defined in the Act. 5See Briggs Manufacturing Company, 101 NLRB 74. 6As the parties stipulated at the hearing that the four watchmen chiefs are not supervisors, and inasmuch as they also perform the duties of guards within the meaning of the Act, we shall include them in the unit. LAKESIDE PACKING COMPANY and GENERAL DRIVERS, DAIRY PRODUCTS, EMPLOYEES AND HELPERS UNION, LOCAL NO. 56, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, A.F.L. Case No. 13-CA-1076. May 12, 1953 DECISION AND ORDER On March 13, 1953, Trial Examine: Eugene E. Dixon issued his Intermediate Report in the above -entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief. The Board' has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Ex- aminer at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was t 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 Styles and Peterson]. 104 NLRB No. 113.