Briggs Manufacturing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 22, 1952

101 N.L.R.B. 74 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

74 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the cutter grinders and the tool crib grinders, as well as the tool crib
attendants,4 are under the immediate supervision of a single foreman,
and under the general supervision of the methods engineer and his
assistant, who have charge of the toolroom and the Employer's
methods department.
. Under all the circumstances, and particularly in view of the present
work location of the tool crib grinders and their community of
interest with the cutter grinders and the other toolroom employees,
we believe that the tool crib grinders may, if they so desire, be repre-
sented in a unit with the toolroom employees. However, as they have
been represented by the Intervenor for a number of years in its
production unit, we shall afford the tool crib grinders an opportunity
to express, in the election herein directed, whether they desire to
continue to be represented by the Intervenor in the production unit
or wish to be represented in a unit with the toolroom employees .6
We shall direct an election among all the Employer's tool crib
grinders at its Toledo, Ohio, plant, excluding all other employees
and all supervisors as defined in the Act.
If a majority of these employees vote for the Petitioner, they will
be taken to have indicated their desire to be included in the toolroom
unit now represented by the Petitioner, and the Regional Director
conducting the election herein, is instructed to issue a certificate of
results of election to that effect. If the majority of these employees
vote for the Intervenor, they will be taken to have indicated their
desire to continue to be represented in the production unit now
represented by the Intervenor, and the Regional Director will issue
a certificate of results of election to such effect.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
4 Although the tool crib attendants thus share common supervision with some of the
toolroom employees, they hand out tools and other materials only to the production and
maintenance employees. There is a separate tool crib that serves the toolroom , with its
own attendant.
A General Electric Co., 97 NLRB 1246.
BRIGGS MANUFACTURING COMPANY and GARRARD C. REED, AN INDI-
VIDUAL, PETITIONER and UNITED PLANT GUARD WORKERS OF AMER-
ICA, LooAL 114. Case No. 7RD-1 925. October 22,195°
Decision and Order
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Emil C. Farkas, hearing
101 NLRB No. 18.
BRIGGS MANUFACTURING COMPANY 75
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from
prejudicial error and 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.
2. The Petitioner is an employee of the Employer. The Union, a
labor organization, is the currently reorganized bargaining represent-
ative of the employees involved in this proceeding.,,
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 asserts that the fire inspectors 2 employed at the
Employer's Detroit, Michigan, plants are not "guards" within the
meaning of Section 9 (b) (3) of the Act, and that the current contract
between the Employer and the Union, covering both guards and fire
inspectors in a single unit, cannot therefore serve as a bar to the
decertification petition herein. On the other hand, the Employer and
the Union assert that the fire inspectors are "guards" within the
statutory definition, and that their current contract bars any election
at this time.
The record discloses that the Employer's Detroit plants employ
approximately 175 guards and 9 hourly paid fire inspectors. The fire
inspectors, for whom the Petitioner seeks decertification, work full
time on the detection and prevention of fires. Most of their day is
spent checking fire extinguishers, hoses, and automatic sprinkling
devices. In the course of their tours the fire inspectors note all fire
hazards and correct them themselves or report them to a plant foreman
or to the assistant director of fire prevention, their immediate super-
visor. Further, it appears that it takes about 6 months to train a fire
inspector, and there is little or no interchange between the fire inspec-
tors and plant guards. The fire inspectors and plant guards each con-
stitute a separate department with separate departmental heads.
Fire inspectors wear badges but are not uniformed. They have
authority to suggest that hazardous operations be suspended until
necessary fire precautions can be taken, but they report matters of
discipline to the appropriate departmental supervisor. At the end of
each day the fire inspectors prepare a report on their day's work for the
assistant director of fire inspection.
1 On August 18, 1952, more than 3 months after the conclusion of the hearing herein,
International Union, United Automobile , Aircraft & Agricultural Implement Workers of
America, CIO , moved to intervene on the grounds that the Board's ruling on the current
contract between the Employer and the Union might adversely affect most of the existing
contracts in the automobile industry . That motion is hereby denied as untimely.
2 The terms "fire marshal" and "fire inspector" were used interchangeably during the
course of the hearing.
76 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On the other hand, the Employer's plant guards, who are uniformed,
patrol the plants to enforce plant rules. When the plants are in opera-
tion the guards are stationed at the plant gates to check employees
and equipment. When the production operations are shut down, the
guards spend most of their time patroling. Although they occasionally
report fire hazards through the plant protection department, the
guards do not have the technical training necessary to carry out the
duties of the fire inspectors.
As it is clear from the record that the Employer's fire inspectors
work exclusively on fire detection and prevention, we find, as we have
in a number of recent cases, that they are not "guards" within the
meaning of the Act 3 It follows therefore that the bargaining unit
covered by the current contract is inappropriate.4 However, in the
unusual circumstances of this case that fact alone is not a sufficient
basis for finding the existence of a question concerning representation.
In our view the Union has taken the position that it does not seek
to represent employees who are not guards within the meaning of the
Act. This position, which the Union has uniformly adhered to in
Board proceedings, is understandable, because Section 9 (b) (3) of the
Act provides that no labor organization can be certified as the bar-
gaining agent for "guards" if it admits to membership employees who
are not "guards." As we have determined here that the Employ-
er's fire inspectors are not "guards," we construe the Union's position
as a waiver of its claim to depresent only the employees involved in this
proceeding. Under these circumstances, we conclude that there is not
now before the Board any question concerning the representation of
the Employer's fire inspectors, and we shall therefore dismiss the peti-
tion herein.
Order
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the instant petition be, and it hereby is,
dismissed.
3 Lockheed Aircra ft Corporation , Georgia Division , 100 NLRB No . 147; Hawthorne
School of Aeronautics , 98 NLRB 1098 ; West Virginia Pulp & Paper Company, 96 NLRB
871 ; Argonne National Laboratories , S9 NLRB 1236.
4In 1948 the Union was certified in Case No . 7-RC-229 as the bargaining representative
for the employees in the unit covered by the current contract. However , that unit was
established pursuant to a stipulation between the Union and the Employer , and without
a Board hearing As we have found from the testimony taken at the bearing herein that
fire inspectors or fire marshals are not "guards" within the meaning of the Act, the
Board, on its own motion , will amend its certification in Case No. 7-RC-229 to exclude
them from the bargaining unit.