General Dynamics Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 17, 1964

148 N.L.R.B. 338 (N.L.R.B. 1964)

338 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
General Dynamics Corporation , Electric Boat Division and
Local 4, Independent Union of Plant Protection Employees,
Petitioner. Case No 1-RC-7898 August 17, 1964
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 Healing Ofl'icei James S
Tobin The Hearing Officer's rulings made at the healing are flee
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has
delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Members Leedom, Fanning, and Brown]
Upon the entire i ecord in this case, the Board finds
1 The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act
2 The Petitioner is a labor organization within the meaning of the
Act, and claims to represent certain employees of the Employer 1
3 A question affecting commerce exists conceinriig the representa-
tion of certain employees of the Employer within the meaning of Sec-
tion9(c) (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of theAct2
4 The Employer is engaged in the construction and maintenance of
submarines and other maritime vessels at its Quincy, Massachusetts,
shipyard herein involved Prior to the Employer's entering upon the
operation of the Quincy yard in February 1964, the Petitioner repre-
sented the guards at that location under a series of contracts with the
Employer's predecessor The Petitioner now seeks a certification for
such a unit The Employer contends that an appropriate guard unit
should include the firemen The Intervenor, which has been the cer-
I Local 90 , Industrial Union of Marine and Shipbuilding workers of America, AFT-CIO,
was allowed to intervene on the basis of its asserted interest in certain of the employees
at issue herein
Subsequent to the hearing , the Employer filed a motion requesting that the record be
reopened to lfford the Metal Trades Council of New London County, Connecticut, AFL-
CIO, an oppoitunity to become a party to this proceeding However, there is no outstnnd
lug assertion by the Metal Trades Council of any interest in the employees involved
herein which would entitle it to intervene Accordingly, the Emplo3er 's motion to reopen
is denied
3Befoie filing its petition, the Petioner icquested the Employer to recognive it and to
honor a contract nhich it had with the Employer s predecessor covering the requested
unit The Employer contends that there is an inconsistency between the Petitioner's
aforementioned request, rejected by the Employer, and the petition which negates the
existence of a question concerning icpresentatiou This contention is pi'unly without
merit Even recognition of and a current contract with a petitioning union does not bar
a petition for certification by that union See, for example Kingsport Press, Inc, 146
NLRB 200, and Ottanoa Machine Products Co, 120 NLRB 1133
148 NLRB No 40
GENERAL DYNAMICS CORP, ELECTRIC BOAT DIVISION 339
tified representative of the firemen and other employees at Quincy
since 1952, appeaied solely to urge the exclusion of the firemen from
the unit
There aie approximately 24 guards at the shipyard under the su-
pervision of a chief and 3 lieutenants The guards are stationed at
the main gate of the yard to insuie that those entering the piemises
have the proper authorization They wear unifoims and have the
power to make arrests, such as of those on the premises without author-
ization An arrest appears to entail taking the apprehended person
to the main gate for further processing It is agreed, and we find,
that these employees are guards under the Act
There are seven firemen at the Quincy yard, who work in three shifts
The fiiemen's principal duty is to maintain and operate the yard's fire-
fighting equipment, including the sprinkler control system They are
responsible for the operation of the Employer's fire engine and am-
bulance, and also fireproof certain materials which require such pro-
tection No fireman is charged with enforcing company rules against
other employees' When he is not checking the sprinkler systems, a
fiieman either stands by at the fire station or assists in preventing the
spread of sparks when a "hot burning job" is in progress When a
guard reports a fire hazard to his lieutenant the nifoi i iation is eventu-
ally forwarded to the firemen who either correct the condition them-
selves, or inform the department in which the hazard exists The
firemen do not stand watch with the guards, nor are they authorized
to pi event anyone from enter rng the shipyard
Under all these circumstances, and upon the entire record, we agree
with the Petitioner and the Intervenor that the firemen are not guards
within the meaning of the Act,' and that they should be excluded from
the guard unit
We find that the following employees of the Employer constitute a
unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of the Act All guards employed by the Employer at its
Quincy, Massachusetts, shipyard, excluding firemen, all other em-
ployees, and supervisors as defined in the Act
[Text of Direction of Election omitted fi om publication ]
'The record reveals that at the indoctrination meeting for -ill employees in February
1964 including the michinists and other mechanics etch emploiee'sas directed to enforce
the no smoking rules , and to prevent other liazords as port of the Employer's policy that
its wort, force should be alert to safety problems generally However only the guards
'ippeai to have the specific responsibility of enforcing the Employer 's yard protection rules
4 See McDonnell Asrc? aft Corpoi atson, 109 NLRB 967