Bull Dog Electric Products Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 18, 1947

74 N.L.R.B. 216 (N.L.R.B. 1947)

In the Matter of BULL DOG ELECTRIC PRODUCTS COMPANY, EMPLOYER
and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL
B-1063, AFL, PETITIONER
Case No. 7-R-2611 .Decided June 18, 1947
Mr. Jacob L. Keidan, of Detroit, Mich., for the Employer.
Mr. William C. Moore, of Detroit, Mich., for the Petitioner.
Mr. Leonard J. Mandl, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
Upon a petition duly filed, the National Labor Relations Board,
on April 21, 1947, conducted a prehearing election among; the em-
ployees of the Employer in the alleged appropriate unit, to determine
whether or not they desired to be represented by the Petitioner for the
purposes of collective bargaining. '
At the close of the election a Tally of Ballots was furnished the
parties. The Tally shows that, of the approximately 16 elegible
voters, 15 cast ballots, all of which were for the Petitioner. There
were no challenged ballots. Thereafter, a hearing was held at Detroit,
Michigan, on May 12,1947, before Harry N. Casselman, hearing officer.
The hearing officer's ruling made at the hearing are free from preju-
dicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations
Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
Bull Dog Electric Products Company, a West Virginia corporation,
authorized to do business in the State of Michigan, is engaged in the
business of manufacturing equipment for the control and distribution
of electrical power. Its plant and office are located in Detroit, Michi-
gan. During 1946, the Employer used at its plant raw materials
valued at more than $125,000, of which over 45 percent represents
shipments from points outside the State of Michigan. During the
74 N. L. R. B., No. 44.
216
BULL DOG ELECTRIC PRODUCTS COMPANY 217
same period, its sales of finished products amounted to more than
$200,000, of which more than 50 percent represents shipments from
its plant to points outside the State.
The Employer admits and we find that it is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Petitioner is a. labor organization affiliated with the American
Federation of Labor, claiming to represent employees of the Employer.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION .
On February 18, 1947, and on several dates thereafter, the Petitioner
requested recognition by the Employer as the exclusive representative
of its plant-protection employees. On March 17, 1947, the Employer
advised the Petitioner that it would not grant its request.
The Employer contends that the Petitioner is not an appropriate
agent to represent the plant-protection employees, inasmuch as it now
represents the Employer's production and maintenance employees.
This contention has been rejected by the Board and the Supreme
Court.' We find that the Petitioner is not estopped from representing
the Employer's plant-protection employees merely because it repre-
sents the production and maintenance employees in the same plant.
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning
the representation of the Employer's plant-protection employees,
within the meaning of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of
the Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The Petitioner requests a unit of all plant-protection employees, in-
cluding relief sergeants, but excluding sergeants and the chief guard.
The Employer does not object to the composition of the requested
unit, but desires the exclusion of relief sergeants.
The Employer's plant-protection department consists of 16 guards,
3 sergeants, and the chief guard. All are uniformed, but none are
deputized, militarized, or armed. There are 6 guards, a sergeant, and
the chief guard on duty on the first shift, 6 guards and a sergeant on
the second shift, and 4 guards and a sergeant on the third shift.
Guards are paid $52.50 per week, and sergeants $57.50. The salary
of the chief guard exceeds that of the sergeants.
1 Matter of The Firestone Tire d Rubber Company, 72 N. L. R. B. 1040; Matter of Hy-
grade Food Products Company, 69 N. L. R. B. 235; Matter of The Cudahy Packing Com-
pany, 67 N. L R B 150; Matter of Chrysler Motors of California , 65 N L. R B. 893;
N L R B. v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation, decided May 19, 1947, 331 U S 416.
218 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The duties of the guards include enforcement of safety and health
regulations, rules relating to the general conduct of the production
and maintenance employees, and fire-prevention rules. They are as-
signed either to a post at a plant gate or a roving assignment around
the plant. At the plant gate, they examine badges of incoming and
outgoing employees, prevent entrance to the plant of any person not
having a badge, examine packages which employees seek to bring into
the plant and prevent employees from bringing in objectionable items
such as radios, guard against theft by employees and others, assist
injured employees, and take telephone messages when the personnel
office is closed. Violations of plant rules and misconduct of employees
are reported by the guards to the sergeant on duty, and to the guilty
employee's foreman. Although the guards are required to request
cessation of violation of plant rules by employees, they have no
authority to discipline such employees.
Relief sergeants take the place of regular sergeants each Sunday
and Monday,2 and at times when the regular sergeants are absent due
to illness or other reason. During these periods when they act as
regular sergeants, the relief sergeants have the same authority as
regular sergeants, who have the power effectively to recommend
changes in the status of guards. At times when they are not acting
as relief sergeants, their duties and authority are the same as that
of guards. They wear the same uniform as guards, except that when
acting as relief sergeants they wear a blouse with sergeant's chevrons.
Since the relief sergeants regularly each week perform the same
duties as full-time sergeants and at such times assume the full
authority and responsibility and exercise all the rights and privi-
leges of sergeants, we shall exclude them from the unit.-,
We find that all plant-protection employees, excluding relief ser-
geants, sergeants, the chief guard, and all or any other supervisory
employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or
otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or effectively rec-
ommend such action, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes
of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the
Act.
V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
The results of the election held before the hearing show that the
Petitioner has received a majority of the valid votes cast, irrespective
of the ballots of the three relief sergeants whom we have excluded
from the unit and who voted at the election without challenge. Under
' Regular sergeants work on a 5-day week basis ; hence they are not on duty on Sunday
and Monday
'Matter of American 31aize-Products Company, 69 N L. R B 66, 74: Matter of Free-
port Sulphur Company, 57 N. L. R. B 1756, 1758.
BULL DOG ELECTRIC PRODUCTS COMPANY 219
the circumstances, we shall certify the Petitioner as the collective
bargaining representative of the employees in the appropriate unit.
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
IT is HEREBY CERTIFIED that International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers, Local B-1063, AFL, has been designated and selected by a
majority of the employees of the Employer in the unit found appro-
priate in Section IV, above, as their representative for the purposes of
collective barganung and that, pursuant to Section 9 (a) of the Act,
the said organization is the exclusive representative of all such em-
ployees for the purposes of collective bargaining with respect to rates
of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of em-
ployment.
MR. JAMES J. RLYNOLDS, JR., dissenting :
For the reasons stated in my dissenting opinion in the Monsanto
Chemical Company case,' which I find equally applicable here, I would
dismiss the present petition.
4 71 N. L. R. B. 11.