Owens-Illinois Glass Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 4, 1951

96 N.L.R.B. 640 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

640 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tion to a temporary lobby. Four inside guards who formerly checked
the credentials of visitors to a "secret area," now control admission to
the powerhouse. Fourteen gatemen who were assigned to various
gates checking on the inflow and outflow of men and vehicles, now
guard gates which were formerly left unguarded. Twenty-five clock
carriers who formerly hourly traversed assigned routes in the plant,
checking for fire and fire hazards and punching clocks at prescribed
intervals, now follow the Globe employees on their rounds at intervals
of about 20 minutes, but no longer carry clocks.
The Globe Agency guards are armed and uniformed; the employ-
ees involved in this proceeding are neither. All the duties performed
by the latter before June 25, 1951, are now being carried out by the
former. This arrangement is'expected to continue. According to the
Employer's uncontradicted testimony, it has no need for guards in
addition to those supplied by the Globe Agency,3 the employees pres-
ently classified as guards, gatemen, and clock carriers will be re-
assigned to other nonguard jobs within 3- months of July 31, 1951,
and at present do not function for the purpose of enforcing against
employees and others rules to protect the property of the Employer
or to protect the safety of persons on the Employer's premises. Under
all the circumstances, we find that at the present time, the guards,
gatemen, and clock carriers are not guards within the meaning of the
Act.4
As neither union desires an election in a unit of nonguards, we shall
dismiss the petition.
Order,
IT Is HEREBY ORDERED that the petition filed herein be, and it hereby
is, dismissed.
9 The Petitioner does not seek to represent the Globe Agency guards.
4In view of our finding that the employees involved are not guards , we find that it is
unnecessary to decide whether the Petitioner is affiliated directly or indirectly with the
American Federation of Labor.
KIMBLE GLASS DIVISION, OwENS-ILLINOIS GLASS COMPANY and INTER-
NATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT AND AGRICIILT[7RAL
IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, UAW-CIO, PETITIONER. Case
No. 13-RC-2005. October 4, 1951
Decision and Order
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Herman J. DeKoven, hear-
ing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
96 NLRB No. 91.
KIMBLE GLASS DIVISION, OWENS-ILLINOIS GLASS CO. 641
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, Reynolds, and Styles].
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 organizations involved claim to represent employees
of the Employer.
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 seeks to represent production and maintenance
employees at the Employer's Warsaw, Indiana, plant. The Employer
and American Flint Glass Workers' Union of North America, AFL,
the Intervenor herein, urge a current contract as a bar to this
proceeding.
The contract urged as a bar was executed on September 21, 1950,
and made effective from September 4, 1950, to October 31, 1952.
Entered into pursuant to a prior union-security authorization elec-
tion,l it contains a union-security provision which reads as follows :
Membership in the American Flint Glass Workers' Union of
North America shall constitute a condition of employment for all
employees covered by this agreement subject to Section 8 (a;
(3) of the Labor-Management Relations Act of 1947. New em-
ployees shall become members of American Flint Glass Workers'
Union of North America within thirty (30) days from date of
their employment.
The Petitioner contends that this provision exceeds the limited
form of union-security agreement permitted by Section 8 (a) (3) of
the Act, urging that no 30-day escape period is provided for employees
who were employed on the date of the execution of the contract, and
that the mere reference to Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act does not "save"
the union-security provision from this defect. We find no merit in
Petitioner's contention. It is clear that the incorporation by direct
reference of the provisions of Section 8 (a) (3) of *the Act into *e
union-security provision constitutes a lawful, if inartistic, union-
security agreement. The second sentence of the provision is not in-
consistent with Section 8 (a) (3), and is, in effect, merely redundant.
We find that the union-security provision is valid and that the con-
tract therefore operates as a bar to an immediate election.2 We shall
dismiss the petition.
'Case No. 13-tiA-1947, November 12, 1948, not reported in printed volumes of Board
decisions.
2 Snyder Engineering Corporation, 90 NLRB 783.
642 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Order
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition herein be, and it hereby is,
dismissed.
BULLDOG ELECTRIC PRODUCTS COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL BROTHER-
HOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, AFL, PETITIONER . Case No. 7-RC-
1384. October 4, 1951
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 James A. Harley,
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 Houston and
Reynolds].
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 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) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Petitioner seeks to represent a unit of technical employees,
including, among others, various kinds of draftsmen, a laboratory
technician, a model maker, copywriters, estimators, a blueprint opera-
tor, production planners, and methods engineers. The Employer
contends that the unit is inappropriate because of a lack of homo-
geneity in its composition. It bases this contention on the fact that
a' little less than one-half of the employees in the proposed unit are
draftsmen, that other employees in the unit do not have drafting
training or experience, and that even among themselves the drafts-
men are not interchangeable. It further argues that an appropriate
unit should include office and clerical employees and should exclude
certain classifications of employees discussed hereinafter.. Finally,
the Employer asserts that the Petitioner is an inappropriate bargain-
ing agent because it already represents the Employer's production
and maintenance employees, and technical personnel are not eligible
for membership in the Petitioner.
96 NLRB No. 85.