Union Carbide Corp.

UNION CARBIDE NUCLEAR COMPANY 579 Union Carbide Nuclear Company, Division of Union Carbide Corporation 1 and Oak Ridge Guards Union, Local 3 Interna- tional Guards Union of America, Petitioner. Case No. 10-RC- 630. November 22, 1957 ORDER DENYING MOTION On July 11, 1949, pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon a consent election, and an election held on June 30, 1949, the Board issued a certification of representatives in which the Petitioner was certified as bargaining representative for "all hourly paid guard em- ployees, including sergeants of guards, in the guard department" at the Employer's Y-12 plant involved herein. On October 22, 1956, the Petitioner filed a motion for clarification of this certification and on December 19, 1956, the Board issued a Decision Clarifying Certifi- cation of Representatives.' Thereafter, it being brought to the Board's attention that the requisite service of the Petitioner's motion had not been made upon either the Employer or Atomic Trades & Labor Council, AFL-CIO, the certified representative of the. Em- ployer's production and maintenance employees, including employees who are the subject of the motion, the Board, on April 12, 1957, va- cated its decision of December 19, 1956, and remanded the matter to the Regional Director for the Tenth Region for the purpose of hold- ing a hearing on issues raised by the Petitioner's motion.3 Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before Frank E. Hamilton, Jr., hearing officer. All parties were represented by counsel, partici- pated in the hearing, were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence perti- nent to the issues involved. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. A brief was filed by the Employer subsequent to the hearing. In its motion for clarification, the Petitioner requests the Board to "clarify meaning of the word `guard' as used in the . . . certification and to declare whether or not `guard' is intended to include or exclude personnel" performing certain escort duties. By this motion, the Petitioner seeks, in substance, a Board holding that all employees who are guards under the Act are included in the certified unit and that employees escorting persons without clearance between the plant entrances and locations within the plant on a regular basis are such guards. The Employer is opposed to the granting of the motion and Atomic Trades & Labor Council, AFL-CIO, assumes a neutral posi- 1 The formal papers in this case were amended at the hearing to reflect the present name of the Employer. a 116 NLRB 1843. 8117 NLRB 1126. 119 NLRB No. 68. 580 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD tion with respect thereto. For the reasons given below, we agree with the Employer that the motion should be denied.' As indicated above, the Board in 1949, upon a stipulation by the Petitioner and Employer, certified a unit consisting of "hourly paid guard employees, including sergeants of guards, in the guard depart- ment" at the Y-12 plant. The record now before us discloses that the guard department referred to is one of three clearly defined de- partments comprising the plant protection division, the others being the security and the fire departments. It is further disclosed that,. since before 1949, the uniformed, armed guards performing guard functions at the plant are employed in this guard department. The contracts executed by the Petitioner and Employer since 1949 describe the unit covered thereby in the language of the certification, except that, beginning with the 1952 contract, the term "sergeant of guards" was deleted because the classification itself was discontinued, and the provisions in the 1955 contract, which was received in evidence, make it clear that the contract applies only to the Employer's uniformed, armed guards. At the hearing, the Petitioner named four employees of the Em- ployer who it alleges fire guards within the meaning of the Act by vir- tue of the escort work they perform. One of these employees, L. M. Stewart, is employed as a receiving clerk in the receiving and ship- ping department while the other employees, Moneymaker, Hicks, and Pace, are employed as salvage yard keepers in the property sales de- partment, disposal section. Receiving Clerk Stewart has been escort- ing truckdrivers making coal deliveries to the plant whereas Money- maker, Hicks, and Pace, in their capacity as salvage yard keepers, escort persons who visit the plant in connection with the Employer's surplus property sales. On these facts, and the record as a whole, it is abundantly clear that the certification in question, in accordance with the intent of the parties upon which it was based, covers only the employees in the guard department, who are the Employer's uniformed, armed guards, and does not extend to employees in other departments, such as Stewart, Moneymaker, Hicks, and Pace. The Petitioner's attempt by its motion for clarification to bring those employees under its certifi- cation is therefore unwarranted.' Accordingly, we shall deny the motion., [The Board denied the motion.] MEMBER MURDOCK took no part in the consideration of the above Order Denying Motion. 4 The critical facts upon which we base this decision were developed at the hearing and were not available to the Board at the time of the original decision herein. 5 See Sangamo Electric Company, 112 NLRB 1310 ; Clarestat Mfg. Co. Inc., 105 NLRB 20; American Potash. & Chemical Corporation, 117 NLRB 542 . Contrary to the Peti-' tioner, it plainly follows that J. C. Smith, who performs escort work for an employer not a party to this proceeding , is likewise not covered by the certification. 6In view thereof , we deem it unnecessary to consider other grounds advanced by the Employer for denying the motion.