Richards Commercial and Industrial Protection Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 25, 1952

100 N.L.R.B. 385 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

RICHARDS COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL PROTECTION COMPANY 385
RICIIARDS COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL PROTECTION COMPANY and
INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED PLANT GUARD WORKERS OF AMERICA,
PETITIONER. Case No. 7-RC-1742. July 25, 1952
Decision and Direction of Election
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before Russell W.
Bradley, hearing 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 Boad finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
National Labor Relations Act.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain em-
ployees.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 in a single unit those employees
of the Employer who work at the Saginaw, Bay City, Muskegon,
Kalamazoo , and Erie, Michigan, plants of Consumers Power Com-
pany. However, should the Board find separate units appropriate,
it is willing to represent the employees on that basis. The Employer
is engaged in the business of furnishing plant protection and plant
guard service to various companies. It contends that only separate
units are appropriate.
In support of the Petitioner's contention, the record shows that the
hours of employment, rates of pay, and general duties of all employees
are similar. On the other hand, it appears from the record that there
have been almost no transfers and no interchange of employees be-
tween the five plants; that the Employer advertises in the local news-
papers and hiring is done locally for each plant; and that there are
considerable distances between the plants, the shortest being the 17
miles from Saginaw to Bay City.
Upon the record as a whole, and particularly in view of the geo-
graphical separation of the plants here involved, the absence of any
interchange between the employees in any of the plants, and the lack
of any collective bargaining history, we believe that separate units
of guards at the five plants of Consumers Power Company are appro-
priate.'
'The Employer moved to dismiss the petition ppon the ground that a demand for
recognition and refusal was not shown We find no merit in the Employer ' s contention
The filing of the petition as amended . is itself a sufficient demand to raise a question
concerning representation Moreover , by refusing to answer the hearing officer's inquiry
at the hearing as to whether it was willing to recognize the Petitioner, the Employer In
eff.ct refused recognition J I. Case Company , Bettendorf Works, 97 NLRB No. 31
Accordingly , the Employer ' s motion is hereby denied.
2 Gibbons Industrial Patrol, Inc , 88 NLRB 1219.
100 NLRB No. 54.
386 ..DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Sergeants: The Employer contends that its sergeants are not super-
visors within the meaning of the Act and should be included in any
unit or units found appropriate. The Petitioner takes no position.
The record discloses that the sergeants devote about two-thirds of
their time to work identical with that of the plant guards; that they
have no authority to hire or fire nor to determine on which shift a
particular guard will work; that they receive reports on activities
from the plant guards, but they in turn submit the information to a
lieutenant or captain for final disposition; and that instructions are
received by the employees from the sergeants who in turn receive
them from a lieutenant or captain. Under these circumstances, we
find that the sergeants are not supervisors within the meaning of
the Act and shall include them in the separate units found appropriate.
We find that the following employees of the Employer constitute
units appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within
the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the amended Act :
(1) All plant guards who work for the Employer at the Consumers
Power Company, Saginaw, Michigan, plant including sergeants, but
excluding all other employees and supervisors as defined in the Act.
(2) All plant guards who work for the Employer at the Consumers
Power Company, Bay City, Michigan, plant including sergeants, but
excluding all other employees and supervisors as defined in the Act.
(3) All plant guards who work for the Employer at the Consumers
Power Company, Muskegon, Michigan, plant including sergeants, but
excluding all other employees and supervisors as defined in the Act.
(4) All plant guards who work for the Employer at the Consumers
Power Company, Kalamazoo, Michigan, plant including sergeants,
but excluding all other employees and supervisors as defined in the Act.
(5) All plant guards who work for the Employer at the Consumers
Power Company, Erie, Michigan, plant including sergeants, but ex-
cluding all other employees and supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
MEMBER STYLES took no part in the consideration of the above Deci-
sion and Direction of Election.
ARKPORT DAIRIES, INC. and CHAUFFEURS & TEAMSTERS LOCAL #65,
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WARE-
HOUSEMEN & HELPERS OF AMERICA, AFL, PETITIONER. Case No.
3-RC-953. July 28,1952
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 John Weld, hearing officer.
100 NLRB No. 61.