General Motors Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 15, 1948

80 N.L.R.B. 317 (N.L.R.B. 1948)

In the Matter of GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, ALLISON DIVISION,
EMPLOYER and AMALGAMATED PLANT GUARD LOCAL No. 4, UNITED
PLANT GUARD WORKERS OF AMERICA, PETITIONER
Case No. 35-RC-5l.-Decided November 15, 1948
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held on May 13, 1938, and
a further hearing 1 on September 22, 1948, before a hearing officer of
the National Labor Relations Board. The hearing officer's rulings
made at these hearings 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 organization named below claims to represent certain
employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of certain employees of the Employer within the meaning of Sec-
tion 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Petitioner seeks a unit of plant protection patrolmen and
fire protection patrolmen at certain of the Employer's plants, more
fully described below. The Employer agrees that the requested unit
is appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining. In view of the
requirements of Section 9 (b) (3) of the amended Act,2 however, it
is necessary that we determine under the facts in this case (a) whether
the Petitioner is qualified to represent a unit of guards, and (b)
whether the unit sought by the Petitioner includes employees other
than guards.
1 Pursuant to direction of the Board.
' Section 9 ( b) (3) provides :
That the Board shall not decide that any unit is appropriate . . . if it includes,
together with other employees, any individual employed as a guard to 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 ; but no labor organization shall be certified
as the representative of employees in a bargaining unit of guards if such organization
admits to membershtip, or is affiliated directly or indirectly with an organization which
admits to membership , employees other than guards. [Emphasis supplied.]
80 N. L. R. B., No. 68.
317
318 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
It was established by undisputed testimony at the further hearing
that the Petitioner is an unaffiliated labor organization restricting its
membership to employees of the Employer who are employed as
guards within the meaning of the amended Act. The Petitioner
indicated that if the Board should hold that any of the employees in
the proposed unit are not guards, such employees would become
ineligible for membership. On these facts, we find that the Petitioner
is qualified under the Act to represent a unit of guards.
The employees sought to be represented by the Petitioner, herein
referred to as the patrolmen and the firemen, comprise the Employ-
er's plant protection department,3 which is under the supervision of
a chief of plant protection. The patrolmen wear uniforms and badges
but are not armed or deputized. They patrol the plant and are also
posted at various stations therein, including the gates, for the pur-
pose of enforcing the Employer's rules and regulations. They are re-
quired to submit a full written report on each violation detected and
may and do detain employees apprehended for violations for the pur-
pose of questioning them or to turn them over to a deputized plant
protection officer empowered to make arrests. It is clear, and we find,
that the patrolmen in this case are guards within the meaning of the
Act.
With respect to the firemen, uncontradicted evidence shows that, in
their regular and routine functions, they enforce the same rules, per-
form the same duties, and exercise the same power, as do the patrol-
men herein, except that they spend an average of 2 days a month
refilling the fire extinguishers in the plant. The firemen and the pa-
trolmen wear substantially the same uniforms, answer to the same
supervisors, and are assigned to the same stations. One of the Em-
ployer's firemen testified that, over a 5-year period in such capacity,
he has had occasion to report and enforce against employees each of
the plant rules read into the record from the Employer's "Guard
Manual." On the basis of this evidence, we find that the firemen are
also guards and may appropriately be included in a single unit with
the patrolmen, within the requirements of Section 9 (b) (3) of the
Act, as amended.4
Accordingly, we find that all plant protection patrolmen and fire
protection patrolmen of the Employer at its plants numbered 1, 2,
3, 5, and 10, Marion County, Indiana, excluding office and clerical
employees, chiefs, captains, lieutenants, sergeants, supervisors, inves-
3 At the time of the hearing, there were 86 non -supervisory patrolmen and 13 non-
supervisory firemen in the plant protection department . These employees were represented
in a single unit for collective bargaining purposes since 1943.
4 See Matter of Douglas Aircraft Company, Inc., 79 N . L. it. B. 752 . Cf. Matter of
Carbide and Carbon Chemicals Corporation, 79 N. L . it. B. 83.
GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION 319
tigators , and all other supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a
unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the
purposes of collective bargaining with the Employer, an election by
secret ballot shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later than
30 days from the date of this Direction, under the direction and super-
vision of the Regional Director for the Region in which this case was
heard, and subject to Sections 203.61 and 203.62 of National Labor
Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 5, as amended, among
the employees in the unit found appropriate in paragraph numbered
4, above, who were employed during the pay-roll period immediately
preceding the date of this Direction of Election, including employees
who did not work during said pay-roll period because they were ill
or on vacation or temporarily laid off, but excluding those employees
who have since quit or been discharged for cause and have not been
rehired or reinstated prior to the date of the election, and also ex-
cluding employees on strike who are not entitled to reinstatement, to
determine whether or not they desire to be represented, for purposes
of collective bargaining, by Amalgamated Plant Guard Local No. 4,
United Plant Guard Workers of America.