Chance Vought Aircraft, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 10, 1954

110 N.L.R.B. 1342 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

1342 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
shows that the partnership was not then engaged in any logging
operations, and had no firm prospects of being so engaged at any
predictable time in the future. The contract between Cole and the
Employer, which had been continued on a verbal basis from January
1954 until the date of the strike, was canceled by Cole in July 1954,
when Cole and the Intervenor reached agreement. Cole then took
over the logging operation theretofore conducted by the Employer,
and also employed the employees formerly employed by the Employer.
In these circumstances, it seems plain to us that there is no present
question concerning the representation of employees of the Employer,
for the simple reason that the Employer has no employees. We would
therefore dismiss the petition on this ground.
CHANCE VOUGHT AIRCRAFT, INCORPORATED and UNITED PLANT GUARD
WORKERS OF AMERICA, PETITIONER . Case No. 16-RC-1498. De-
cember 10, 1954
Decision and Order
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National La-
bor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Lewis T. Roebuck, hear-
ing 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 a is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organization 3 involved claims to represent certain
employees of the Employer.
3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the represen-
tation 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 Employer is engaged in the manufacture of aircraft under
Government contract for the United States Navy at its plant located
in Dallas, Texas, where it employs approximately 14,300 employees.
The Petitioner seeks a guard unit of approximately 90 hourly rated
employees in the Employer's guard group. The requested unit is
identical to the one in which the Board directed an election at the
instance of the Petitioner on January 23, 1953,4 which resulted in a
majority vote for "no union." The Employer contends that approxi-
1 The Employer ' s request for oral argument is hereby denied as the record and briefs in
our opinion adequately present the issues and the positions of the parties.
2 The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing.
3 The name of the Petitioner appears as amended at the hearing
4 Chance Vought Aircraft Division, United Aircraft Corporation, 102 NLRB 556.
110 NLRB No. 204.
CHANCE VOUGHT AIRCRAFT , INCORPORATED 1343
mately 42 labor grade 8 firemen and 6 firemen dispatchers ,5 members
of its fire group who were excluded from that unit," are also guards
within the meaning of the Act and should be included in any guard
unit now found to be appropriate.
The plant protection section of the Employer is headed by a super-
visor of plant protection . A fire chief , in charge of the fire group,
and a guard chief, in charge of the guard group, are directly respon-
sible to him .7 The plant protection section is charged with safe-
guarding the welfare and safety of the employees and with the respon-
sibility of protecting the property of the Employer and the Navy.
The guards and the firemen are the two groups charged with the
enforcement of all plant protection rules and regulations.
The guards are primarily concerned with the perimeter of the
plant, where various guard stations are located . They check badges,
direct traffic , and seek to prevent and uncover pilferage and thefts
from the plant and parking lots. They do not walk beats , but respond
to calls for assistance from inside the plant . Guards are also sta-
tioned within the plant in areas where confidential or classified work
is being conducted . Guard drivers operate three patrol cars, and
their particular function is the patrol of the perimeter fence and the
large south parking lot . They also answer emergency calls, transport
relief guards to their posts, and perform other duties as directed.
The firemen make regularly scheduled patrols of the plant follow-
ing prescribed routes, and punch watchmen 's deter clocks while on
these rounds. These patrols were at one time a function of the guard
group when the plant was located in Connecticut . On the second and
third shifts and over weekends , approximately 50 percent of the fire-
men's time is spent in making these patrols . They also make inspec-
tion patrols on specific assignment . The enforcement of plant rules
and regulations , as well as checking for fire hazards , is an essential
element of these patrols . Firemen conduct ramp patrols when planes
are being fueled or refueled or prepared for flight , their function
being to enforce rules designed for fire prevention and for the safety
of property and other employees . In addition , they issue welding
5 The labor grade 8 firemen and the firemen dispatchers are referred to herein as firemen
and dispatchers, respectively.
e The fire group contains other employees in addition to the firemen and dispatchers,
namely the crash boat crew, the firemen drivers, the assistant maintenance technician,
and the fire extinguisher maintenance man The crash boat crew operates on a small
lake on the property of the Employer while all flight operations are being carried on ;
the firemen drivers are responsible for handling fire engine equipment ; the maintenance
technician is engaged primarily in maintaining fire fighting equipment , such as the under-
ground sprinkler system, and the fire extinguisher maintenance man makes periodic in-
spections maintaining all fire extinguishers . The Employer does not claim that these
employees, who were also excluded from that unit, should now be included in the appro-
priate guard unit.
7 Also part of the plant protection section, but not involved in this proceeding, are the
internal security investigation , personnel investigation , and personnel central file groups.
These employees are all salaried personnel.
1344 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
permits and rope off and patrol areas where maintenance welding is
being performed. Firemen participate in periodic fire drills and
may be used at times to assist the drillmaster in instructing volunteer
firemen groups. Approximately 75 to 80 percent of the working
time of the firemen is spent in activities other than in assignments to
fire vehicles, fire equipment, or the fire station.8
The guards and the firemen are uniformed, although the colors of
their uniforms differ. The guards are armed, while the firemen are
not. Guards are trained in fire prevention work and have taken over
firemen's functions at times.9 They respond with the -firemen and
the volunteer firemen to a fire alarm. Similarly, firemen at times
perform duties of the guards.'°
The firemen are specifically charged with the enforcement of all
company rules and regulations. Their job description describes their
function as being "to protect life and property endangered by fire
and to enforce Company rules and regulations." [Emphasis supplied.]
In addition to their fire prevention and fire protection work, their
enumerated duties include the safeguarding of property against care-
lessness, negligence, malicious destruction, sabotage, espionage, and
depredation, aiding in quelling disturbances, and preserving order
on company property. In emergencies, firemen have been brought
under the direct control of the guard chief and assigned to guard
posts."' The plant protection Fire Department Manual issued to
firemen lists all the plant protection rules and regulations and directs
the firemen that enforcement of such rules is one of their responsi-
bilities at all times. From time to time, their attention has been called
to certain aspects of plant protection enforcement.12 Fireman Gray
testified at the hearing that he had been instructed when hired that
the enforcement of these rules was his responsibility ; that these in-
8 Fireman Gray testified at the hearing that on the first shift he would spend approxi-
mately 1 hour out of 8 on duty at the firehouse , while on the second and third shifts he
would spend about 2 hours stationed there.
8 Guards are sometimes used to standby at welding operations , or in roped -off areas
usually patrolled by the firemen.
10 In the event of a plane accident , both guards and firemen rope off the area and patrol
it. In such situations , firemen take over guard functions as such, controlling the access
of people and vehicles into the area.
11 In January of 1953 there was an unauthorized work stoppage by production em-
ployees for a period of about 1 week. All firemen were placed on a duty status directly
under the guard chief and assigned to guard posts.
The firemen were also placed directly under the guard chief when the Employer held
open house for 2 days and allowed the public to inspect the plant.
12 The following is the entry in the firemen's logbook for âIay 26, 1953 :
In order to assist the other units in plant protection in tightening up security
within the plant, all firemen should be on the alert for any unescorted applicants
or visitors The badge worn will designate these applicants and visitors. If any
of these people are seen in areas other than the employment office, hospital or lobby,
notify Guard Headquarters.
Firemen on the second and third shifts have been specifically instructed to attempt to
discover the parties responsible for thefts of property at night. There are no guard patrols
carried on by guard employees as such on the second and third shifts.
CHANCE VOUGHT AIRCRAFT, INCORPORATED 1345.
structions had been repeated in the courses of instruction held for
firemen at periodic intervals ; that he had personally enforced a sub-
stantial number of these regulations; and that he had at all times
considered it his duty to enforce all plant protection rules and regula-
tions in the course of his patrols.
The Petitioner contends that, because the unit petitioned for is the
same unit found appropriate by the Board in 1953, the Board should
therefore be bound by its previous decision. However, we are con-
strained to reach a different result here in the light of the facts re-
vealed in the present record-and in view of intervening Board decisions
affecting the status of guards under Section 9 (b) (3) of the Act.
Thus, since the hearing in that case, the Employer has codified and
made more explicit the duties of these firemen to enforce company
rules and regulations. Although such written instructions and direc-
tions are not per se sufficient to change the status of these employees,
the present record contains considerable documentary evidence and
other proof, including the testimony of one of the firemen involved,,
to the effect that these firemen do in fact enforce plant rules and regu-
lations. Such evidence and testimony was not before the Board when
it made the prior decision.
Furthermore, at the time of that decision the policy of the Board
was to hold that employees performing guard functions less than 50
percent of their time were not guards within the meaning of the Act.
The Board there said in relation to the firemen, that ". . . as the guard
duties which they may perform do not constitute a dominant aspect
of their total work pattern, we find that the members of the fireman
group are not guards within the definition of Section 9 (b) (3) of the
Act." [Emphasis supplied.] 13 In the Walterboro 14 case however,
decided thereafter, the Board abandoned this concept and, in over-
ruling all prior inconsistent cases, held that the policy considerations
which prompted the special treatment of guards are as applicable to,
part-time as to full-time guards in that it is the nature of the duties
of guards and not the percentage of time which they spend in such
duties which is and should be controlling.','
This is not to say that the function of firemen in protecting life
and property against fire is sufficient in itself to make them guards
within the meaning of Section 9 (b) (3) of the Act.16 Interpreting
this section, the Board found in the McDonnell case 17 that firemen
are not guards where they enforce only a limited segment of the Em-
is 102 NLRB 556, 558
14 Walterboro Manufacturing Corporation , 106 NLRB 1383.
15 To qualify as a guard within the statutory definition , one must ". . . enforce against
employees and other persons rules to protect property of the employer or to protect the
safety of persons on the employer ' s premises."
19 Briggs Manufacturing Company, 101 NLRB 74.
17 McDonnell Aircraft Corporation, 109 NLRB 967.
338207-55-vol . 110-86
1346 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ployer's plant protection rules, namely, the fire prevention rules, and
where this enforcement is only incidental to their main duties of fight-
ing fires, maintaining fire equipment, and standing by at hazardous
operations. On the other hand, the Board has held in the Republic
Aviation case 18 that firemen are guards within the meaning of the
Act where they patrol assigned plant areas to protect personnel and
property against fire, instruct groups of voluntary firemen, conduct
periodic fire drills, and where an essential part of their duties consists
of enforcing plant protection rules and regulations against employees.
It is clear from the record that the firemen in the present proceeding
are of the type held to be guards in the Republic Aviation case.is
Here, as there, although the primary function of the firemen is fire
prevention and fire protection work, an essential part of their duties
and responsibilities is the enforcement of the Employer's other plant
protection rules and regulations.20 Accordingly, we find that the fire-
men, labor grade 8, are guards within the meaning of Section 9 (b)
(3) of the Act and should be included in any unit of the Employer's
guards found to be appropriate 21
There remains the question of the unit placement of the dispatchers.
These employees are members of the fire group and wear firemen's uni-
forms. The dispatchers handle all communications equipment for
the plant protection section. This includes the supervision and han-
dling of the fire alarm, fire supervision system, and the plant protec-
tion switchboard, which is a PBX board primarily used by the guard
group. Dispatchers keep a log of all reports of activities covering
security matters or matters pertaining to violations of company rules
registered with them. They correlate activities of both guard cruisers
and fire equipment and have immediate control over the master radio
station. They ordinarily spend more time handling communications
for the guard group than for the fire group. They dispatch fire equip-
18 Republic Aviation Corporation, 106 NLRB 91.
le Nash Kelvinator Corporation , 107 NLRB 644 , cited by Petitioner , is distinguishable
from the present situation . In that case , the duties of the employees involved were con-
fined to checking for fire hazards and in checking the safety equipment of other employees
engaged in hazardous work. There , as in the McDonnell case, the duties and responsi-
bilities of the employees were limited in scope as compared with the overall responsibilities
of the employees involved in the Republic Aviation case and of the firemen herein, who
are charged with the duty of enforcing , and do actually enforce, the plant protection rules
and regulations of the employer.
20 In explication of this, the plant protection supervisor emphasized that the common
goal of both the guards and the firemen is the security of the plant , and that " . . . we
expect both of them to have considerable knowledge of the other man's job and we train
them for that purpose " [ Emphasis supplied ]
2i Republic Aviation Corporation, supra; Walterboro Manufacturing Corporation, supra
Our dissenting colleagues make the argument that, even assuming that the firemen are
to be treated as guards, they should not be included in the same unit with the other guards.
They cite no precedent for separating guards into different units , and indeed there is none.
Moreover, to adopt this approach would be to engraft a modification upon the Walterboro
case, which case has the unanimous support of the Board . For, henceforth , our colleagues
would require the Board to examine whether part -time guards have a community of in-
terest with full-time guards before including them in the same guard unit. To us, this
approach is not consonant with the statute.
CHANCE VOUGHT AIRCRAFT, INCORPORATED 1347
ment, firemen, and guards in answer to alarms and operate the plant
protection switchboard to route incoming calls and to screen outgoing
calls.
The dispatcher's office is located in guard headquarters, where the
dispatchers work under the supervision of the shift guard lieutenant.
There are 6 dispatchers for the 3 shifts. However, two dispatchers
are not always present during every shift due to the staggering of
their workweeks. When 2 dispatchers are present, only 1 is required
to be on duty at all times. The relief dispatcher is then assigned other
duties at the discretion of his superior officer, such as inspection pa-
trols or standby patrols. Dispatchers have interchanged with guards
for short periods of time, while firemen often act as relief dispatchers.
The dispatchers are charged with the same responsibilities as the fire-
men and guards concerning the enforcement of the plant protection
rules and regulations. During emergencies, they too may be placed
directly under the guard chief and assigned guard posts and duties.
Under all of the circumstances and upon the facts contained in the
record, we find that these dispatchers, like the firemen, are guards
within the meaning of Section 9 (b) (3) of the Act and should be in-
cluded in the appropriate guard unit.22
We have found above that the unit requested by the Petitioner is too
limited in scope, and that the appropriate guard unit is one which
includes the firemen, labor grade 8, and the firemen dispatchers. The
Petitioner, however, has not made a substantial showing of interest in
this larger guard unit. We shall, therefore, dismiss the instant peti-
tion without prejudice.
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
CHAIRMAN FARRIER and MEMBER PETERSON, dissenting :
Unlike the majority, we would find that the group of guards sought
by the Petitioner constitutes an appropriate unit. Our colleagues
premise their dismissal of the petition upon the ground that the fire-
men and dispatchers are also guards within the meaning of Section 9
(b) (3) of the Act and should therefore be included in the unit. In
response to the Petitioner's contention that, because the unit petitioned
for is the same unit found appropriate by the Board in the 1953
Chance Vaught case,23 the Board should therefore be bound by its pre-
vious decision, our colleagues say that: (1) The present record more
clearly shows that the firemen and dispatchers are guards; (2) the
duties of the firemen are more analogous to those in the Republic Avi-
ation case 24 than in the McDonnell case; 25 and (3) the earlier Chance
22 Walterboro Manufacturing Corporation, supra,
See footnote 4, supra.
a See footnote 18, supra.
25 See footnote 17, supra.
1348 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Vought decision was based upon the Board's then prevailing policy
of holding that employees performing guard functions less than 54
percent of their time were not guards , which policy was changed by
the Walterboro case 26 We find these reasons unpersuasive.
Regarding ( 1), we are unable to accept the conclusion that this
record affords any substantial support for holding a different unit
appropriate today than in 1953, in light of the testimony of the Em-
ployer's plant protection supervisor , Smith, that there has been no
significant change in the duties of the employees in the plant protection
section since November 1952.
With respect to (2), we believe that the duties of the firemen are
similar to those in the McDonnell case where the Board found them
not to be guards rather than to those in the earlier Republic Aviation
case. In the McDonnell case, the primary duty of the firemen was to
protect the employer 's plant and equipment from fire and to enforce
fire protection rules. Here, as stated by Supervisor Smith, "the pri-
mary function of the fire department is fire prevention . That is the
primary function . That's what they are there for, to prevent fires and
to enforce the rules and regulations that seek that end." In the Mc-
Donnell case , the guards ' duties were to protect the employer 's prop-
erty , maintain order, guard gates and fences against intruders, and
control parking and traffic . In the instant case, again according to
Smith, "the primary job of the guards is protection of the perimeter,,
checking people in and out to see that they have the proper badge on
and enforcing rules and regulations , handling our closed areas and
the like."
As to ( 3), in our opinion, the then existing Board policy with re-
spect to guards was not the sole reason, nor indeed the principal reason,
for the Board 's decision in the earlier Chance Vought case that the-
firemen and dispatchers with whom we are here concerned were not
guards. We believe the main basis for that decision was the different.
functions and duties of the guards and firemen and dispatchers-
duties which, as we have indicated , apparently remain substantially
unchanged today. Morever, if the Walterboro case had the impact
on the earlier Chance Vought case which our colleagues apparently
attribute to it, we cannot help wondering why in the McDonnell case,
which came after both decisions and where the Board found the par-
ticular firemen not to be guards , the principal precedent cited was
Chance Vought.
However, even if we were to agree with our colleagues that the fire-
men and dispatchers should be treated as guards , we would still reach
a different result. Thus, the record discloses that the fireman group
has a separate supervisory hierarchy from that of the guard group;
21 See footnote 14, supra.
NORTHROP AIRCRAFT, INC. 1349
that promotions are made only within the ranks of each group; that
working conditions and assignments for the two groups are different;
that each group has different uniforms and only the guards are armed;
and, that initial employment prerequisites for the groups are not the
same (in hiring firemen, the Employer looks for fire fighting experi-
ence and specialized training, whereas in hiring guards, the Employer
looks for knowledge of certain principles of police authority and of
criminal law involving personal liberties). In these circumstances,
we would find that the employees sought by the Petitioner constitute
an appropriate unit entitled to separate representation because they
are an identifiable, homogeneous, and functionally distinct group, with
a community of interest apart from those of the firemen. For similar
reasons, we would exclude the dispatchers from the unit.
In view of the foregoing, we dissent from the dismissal of the peti-
tion in this case and would direct an election in the unit of guards re-
quested by the Petitioner.
NORTHROP AIRCRAFT , INC. and INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTO-
MOBILE , AIRCRAFT AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF
AMERICA (UAW-CIO) , PETITIONER . Case No. 21-RC-3624.
December 10,1954
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 Leo Fischer, hearing officer.
The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from preju-
dicial 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 labor organizations involved claim to represent certain
employees of the Employer.2
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 appropriate unit :
The Petitioner seeks essentially a production and maintenance unit,
with the usual exclusions, at the Employer's Anaheim, California,
plant. The Employer contends that only a unit including its various
1 The hearing officer referred to the Board the Employer 's motion to dismiss the petition
on the ground that the unit sought is inappropriate. For the reasons set forth in section
-numbered 4, infra, the motion is denied.
t National Union, United Aircraft Welders of America, Ind., was permitted to intervene
at the hearing on the basis of its asserted current contractual interest.
110 NLRB No. 218.