Reynolds Metals Co.

120 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Reynolds Metals Company (Reduction and Alloys Plant) and District Lodge No. 92, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, Petitioner Reynolds Metals Company and International Union, United Plant Guard Workers of America and its Amalgamated Local Union 601. Cases 10-RC-9082 and 10-UC-46 July 10, 1972 DECISION AND ORDER CLARIFYING CERTIFICATION BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS JENKINS AND KENNEDY Upon a petition for certification filed by District Lodge No. 92, International Association of Machin- ists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, hereinafter referred to as IAM, and upon a petition for clarification of unit filed by International Union, United Plant Guard Workers of America and its Amalgamated Local Union 601, hereinafter referred to as UPGWA, under Section 9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a hearing was held before Hearing Officer Melvin Hutson. Following the hearing and pursuant to Section 102.67 of the National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regula- tions and Statements of Procedure, Series 8, as amended, by direction of the Regional Director for Region 10, this case was transferred to the National Labor Relations Board for decision. Thereafter, the Employer and UPGWA filed briefs. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's rulings made at the hearing and finds that they are free from prejudicial error. They 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, and it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. 2. IAM and UPGWA are labor organizations within the meaning of the Act. Petitioner IAM seeks certification as representative of the following unit: All firemen employed by the Employer at its plants in Listerhill and Sheffield, Alabama, excluding all other employees including office clerical employees, professional employees, guards, watchmen and supervisors as defined in the Act. Petitioner UPGWA seeks clarification of the following unit for which it was certified as bargaining representative by the Board in 1970: All guards employed by the Company at its plants in Listerhill and Sheffield, Alabama, excluding firemen, and all other employees, professional employees, and supervisors as defined in the National Labor Relations Act. The clarification sought by UPGWA would include in the unit the classification of "fire guards." The Employer and UPGWA contend that the duties of the firemen have changed significantly since their exclusion from the guard unit at the time of the Board's certification, and that the firemen are not "guards" within the meaning of Section 9(b)(3) of the Act. The Employer, therefore, submits that Petitioner IAM, a labor organization which represents employ- ees other than guards, is not qualified to represent the firemen, who now perform guard duties, and that the IAM's petition should be dismissed. Upon the record herein it is evident that the duties of the firemen have, in fact, undergone substantial change since the Board's certification in 1970. Due to increased theft and violation of company rules, the Employer found it necessary to utilize its entire protection division, composed of both firemen and guards, to perform guard functions. As a result, in addition to their original responsibility for fire protection, the firemen are now charged with the enforcement of all company rules and regulations and, like the guards, are required to stand gate duty, where they are responsible for preventing the removal of company property, checking parcels carried into and out of the plant, and admitting authorized personnel to the premises. Firemen now patrol the Employer's parking lots, as do the guards, and have issued citations for parking violations. In performance of these duties, the firemen, like the guards, are authorized to physically remove anyone in violation of company rules. Firearms are available to both firemen' and guards and, in fact, have been issued to both groups. Additionally, firemen and guards wear identical uniforms and badges, and receive the same company manual and first aid training. Thus, it is evident that the duties of the firemen have changed significantly since the fire- men's exclusion from the unit in 1970 when they were employed solely for providing fire protection. In light of the facts set forth above, we believe it is clear that the firemen now perform guard duties, enforcing company rules against employees and others, in addition to providing fire protection. It is immaterial that performance of guard duties is not their only function. The record indicates that at least 25 percent of the firemen's time is spent performing guard duties, and it is apparent that enforcement of company rules is a continual part of their responsibil- 198 NLRB No. 31 REYNOLDS METALS COMPANY ity and is a significant portion of the requirements of their job. In these circumstances we find that the firemen are guards within the meaning of Section 9(1)(3).1 As we have found that the employees sought to be represented are guards within the meaning of the Act, and as Petitioner IAM is a labor organization which represents employees other than guards, we further find that IAM is not qualified, under Section 9(b)(3), to represent the employees sought by its petition. Accordingly, we shall dismiss the petition. Under these circumstances we conclude that the duties of firemen having undergone such changes as to be tantamount to the creation of a new classifica- tion, and, as we find the firemen to be guards within the meaning of the Act and properly within 1 The Wackenhut ! Corporation, 196 NLRB 1278p;^ North ) American Aviation, Inc., 161 NLRB 297; Watchmamtors, Inc, 128 NLRB 903; Laundry Owners Association of Greater Cincinnati, 123 NLRB 543, 546, 547; 121 UPGWA's bargaining unit, we shall accordingly clarify its certification to include that classification.2 ORDER It is hereby ordered that the petition filed by District Lodge No. 92, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, in Case 10-RC-9082, be, and it hereby is, dismissed. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the certification issued to the International Union, United Plant Guard Workers of America and its Amalgamated Local Union 601, in Case 10-RC-8427, be, and it hereby is, clarified by specifically including therein the Em- ployer's employees classified as firemen or fire guards. Waterboro Manufacturing Corporation, 106 NLRB 1383, 1384. 2 See The Standard Oil Company (Ohio) (Akron Division), 146 NLRB 1189, 1191; Brockton-Taunton Gas Company, 132 NLRB 940,942