American District Telegraph Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 9, 1950

89 N.L.R.B. 1228 (N.L.R.B. 1950)

Jn the Matter of AMERICAN DISTRICT TELEGRAPH COMPANY, EMPLOYER
and UNITED PLANT GUARD WORKERS OF AMERICA, AN INTERNA-
TIONAL UNION AND ITS AMALGAMATED PLANT GUARD LOCAL No. 114,
PETITIONER
Case No . 7-RC-773.-Decided May 9, 1950
DECISION
AND
ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before Herman Coren-
:.man, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hear-
ing 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 National Labor Relations Act.-'
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain em-
_ployees of the Employer.
3. The Petitioner seeks to represent a unit of all operators, operator-
;.guards, and guard-operators in the Employer's operating department
,.at Detroit, Michigan, excluding office and clerical employees and su-
pervisors. The Employer contends that the requested unit is inap=
propriate because it does not include the Employer's plant depart-
ment employees.' It further contends that to permit these employees
to be represented by the Petitioner would foster the possibility of a
conflict in allegiance owed to the public and to the Employer, and the
allegiance owed to the Petitioner and its members who work as plant
guards for the Employer's subscribers.
' For the reasons stated in American District Telegraph Company, 84 NLRB 162, we
reject the Employer 's contention that its operations do not affect commerce within the
,-meaning of the Act.
z The Employer urges that the operating and plant department employees should be
'included together in one unit because all of these employees are engaged in the work of
;;protection , and the electrical work done by employees in the plant department is an integral
;part of its protection service.
.89 NLRB No. 111.
,1228
AMERICAN DISTRICT TELEGRAPH COMPANY 1229
The Employer, a Michigan corporation,3 supplies various forms of
:protection against fire, unlawful entry, and other hazards by means of
'electrical devices, which are installed on the property of its customers 4
Alarms and other signals, originating on the property of a subscriber,
,,are relayed electrically by a system of wires to the central station of the
Employer.
The Employer's operations in Detroit are conducted in three de-
partments : an operating department, which receives and investigates
.alarm signals and makes minor adjustments to the equipment during
investigation •, a plant department, which installs, inspects, and repairs
equipment; and a commercial department, composed of salesmen and
-clerical workers.5
The operating department consists of a central office and 5 guard
stations, all situated in the Detroit area, which are subject to the super-
vision and control of the central office. All of the operating depart-
ment employees are under the supervision of the operating manager.
'There are 10 female operators, 1 male operator, 9 operator-guards and
-32 guard-operators in the operating department.
The female operators work exclusively at the central station, where
they are assigned to watch for alarms, and to check the signals turned
in by night watchmen in the employ of subscribers. These employees
are not dispatched on guard runs. The one male operator is subject
to guard work, but very seldom goes out. He is called on for guard
work only in emergencies to assist a guard.
The guards are uniformed and are licensed to carry revolvers in self-
^defense. All are deputized. Their principal duty is to investigate
the cause of fire and burglar alarms on the premises of subscribers.
The guard runs in which these employees participate involve a re-
sponse to a signal received at the central station, an inspection of the
premises to detect the presence of an intruder, a fire, or some other
hazard, and the completion of minor or temporary repairs to the equip-
ment whenever the investigation reveals a need for such repair.
None of the Employer's guards regularly patrol the premises of
subscribers. They may, however, be called upon occasionally to take
over the actual guardianship of subscribers' property when the watch-
man is incapacitated or otherwise unable to complete his patrol. In
ddition, they may be called upon to guard the premises of a subscriber
8 The Employer maintains offices in Detroit and seven other Michigan cities. Only its
operations in the Detroit metropolitan area are involved in this proceeding. The Employer
is a wholly owned subsidiary of the American Telegraph Company, and is an integral part
of a Nation -wide system specializing in electrical protection.
4 The Employer retains ownership of the electrical equipment installed on the premises
of subscribers.
The commercial department *employees are not involved in this proceeding.
1230 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
when the alarm system is, for any reason, inoperative and not amenable
to emergency repair.
Guards are also required to initiate reports with respect to any evi-
dence of carelessness or misconduct on the part of the subscriber's.
employees, which they may discover in the course of an investigation.
The information submitted by guards in this connection is transmitted
by the Employer to the subscriber. The guards are authorized only
to report infractions, and not to reprimand the subscriber's employees
or give them orders.6
The plant department consists of 9 inspectors, 12 repairmen, and 17
installers, who work under the general supervision of the city foreman.
There is no interchange of employees between the plant department
and the operating department.
,The plant department employees install, maintain, and inspect
equipment owned by the Employer and installed on the premises of
subscribers. The repairmen receive assignments from both operating
department and plant department supervisors. Inspectors and re-
pairmen may, upon occasion, be dispatched to investigate signals
received in the central station, when they happen to be in the vicinity
of the premises involved. Some of the night repairmen are armed, and
they frequently accompany guards engaged in the investigation of an
alarm.
In an earlier case involving substantially similar operations, a ma-
jority of the Board found that the operating department employees
were "guards" within the meaning of the Act.7 In a later case, in-
volving the present Employer, a panel of the Board, on the basis of
the prior decision, found "that some of the operating department
employees are guards, while other employees in the alleged unit are not
guards," and that the unit was therefore inappropriate.8 The Board
has found that plant department employees, performing substantially
identical functions as those in the present case, are not guards within
the meaning of the Act.9
We cannot agree with the finding in the 1949 case that any of the
employees in this Employer's operating department are. "guards"
within the meaning of Section 9 (b) (3) of the Act. Section 9 (b)
8 Guards, for example, are instructed to inform the subscriber's employees as to the
existence of fire hazards or any other conditions which should be reported. They are not
authorized, however, to require action to correct the condition.
7American District Telegraph Company, 83 NLRB 517. (1949). (Members Reynolds,
Murdock and Gray ; Chairman Herzog and Member Houston dissented.)
8 American District Telegraph Company, 84 NLRB 162. The Board found that guard-
operators in the operating department were guards, but that the installers in the plant
department were not. The Board considered it unnecessary at the time of the decision
in that case to determine whether or not the other employees involved were guards.
9 American District Telegraph Company, 83 NLRB 617; American District Telegraph
Company of Missouri, 83 NLRB 1139.
AMERICAN DISTRICT TELEGRAPH COMPANY 1231
prohibits the Board from including guards in a unit with other em-
ployees, or from certifying a union as the representative of guards if it
admits to membership employees other than guards, or is affiliated
with an organization which does so. In our opinion, this prohibition
was directed at persons employed to enforce rules to protect the
property of their own Employer, or to protect on the premises of
their own Employer the safety of persons, and not as guards of the
sort here involved.'0
To hold that these employees are "guards" within the meaning of
the Act, would achieve a result inimical to the very intent of Congress
in enacting these restrictions. Congress was concerned with the prob-
lem of divided loyalties between an Employer's own plant guards
and those of his own other employees whose derelictions of duty the
guards are expected to report. To hold that the employees sought to
be represented by the Petitioner are guards would tend to create and
foster the very tendency toward divided loyalty which Congress evi-
dently sought to prevent. The subscriber's guards are generally the
only employees of the subscriber on whom the employees here in ques-
tion have any occasion to report or with whom they come in contact.
A holding that these employees are "guards" within the meaning of
the Act would mean that these employees and the guards of the sub-
scribers could be represented by the same union, a result Congress was
seeking to prevent.
We therefore conclude and find that the Employer's guards are not
the type of monitorial plant guards whom Congress intended to cover
by Section 9 (b) (3) of the Act, and are not guards within the meaning
of that provision of the Act."
We agree with the Employer that the record shows no reason why
the employees in the Employer's plant department should not be in-
eluded in a unit with those in the operating department. We find that
a unit of both the plant and operating department employees consti-
tutes an appropriate unit. We therefore find that the unit sought by
the Petitioner, from which the plant department employees are ex-
cluded, is not an appropriate bargaining unit.
The Petitioner has not made an adequate showing of interest among
the employees in the broader unit which we have found appropriate.
Accordingly, we find that no question affecting commerce exists within
10 Section 9 (b) (3) provides that the Board shall not find appropriate any bargaining
unit which includes together with other employees, "any individual employed as a guard to
enforce against employees and others rules to protect property of the Employer or to protect
the safety of persons on the Employer's premises ." ( Emphasis supplied.)
11 In reaching this decision we hereby reverse the conclusions reached in American Dis-
trict Telegraph Company, 83 NLRB 517 ; American District Telegraph Company of Missouri,
83 NLRB 1139 ; and American District Telegraph Company, 84 NLRB 162.
1232 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ; BOARD
an appropriate bargaining unit, and we shall dismiss the petition:
filed herein 12
ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and the entire record'
in the case, the Board hereby orders that the petition for investigation,
and certification of representatives of employees of the American Dis-
trict Telegraph Company, Detroit, Michigan, filed by the United Plant
Guard Workers of America, an International Union and its Amalga-
mated Plant Guard Local No. 114, be, and it hereby is, dismissed..
MEMBERS REYNOLDS and MuRDOC$, dissenting :
For the reasons stated in the majority opinion of the Board in Amer-
ican District Telegraph Company, 83 NLRB 517, we disagree with the,
conclusions of our colleagues that none of the employees in the above--
named Employer's operating department are guards within the mean-
ing of Section 9 (b) (3) of the Act. We would reaffirm the decision ink
that case and, therefore, find that the unit proposed by the petitioner-
is appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining for those em--
ployees in the Employer's operating department who perform the
functions of guards.
11 Tennessee Packers, Inc., 87 NLRB 90.