North American Aviation, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 21, 1966

161 N.L.R.B. 297 (N.L.R.B. 1966)

NORTH AMERICAN AVIATION, INC . 297
North American Aviation , Inc. and Local 887, United Aerospace
Workers, AFL-CIO, Petitioner . Case 31-RC-101. October 21,
1966
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, a hearing was held before Hearing Officer
Max Steinfeld. The Hearing Officer's rulings made at the hearing are
free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. The Employer
and the Petitioner filed briefs with the National Labor Relations
Board.
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, [Chairman McCulloch and Members Brown and
Zagoria].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act and it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert juris-
diction herein.
2. The labor organizations involved claim 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 Sec-
tions 9(c) (1) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act, for the following reasons:
The Employer is engaged in the manufacture of aerospace prod-
ucts. The Petitioner seeks to sever from an existing unit of plant
protection employees, represented by the North American Aviation
Police and Firemen Benefit Society, the Intervenor herein, a unit of
firemen employed in six divisions 1 of the Employer's Southern Cali-
fornia operations. The Employer and Intervenor have had contrac-
tual bargaining relations covering the plant protection employees for
more than 20 years, having represented the patrolmen since 1943
and the firemen since 1949. The Employer contends that the firemen
are also guards, and therefore that Section 9(b) (3) of the Act
requires dismissal of the petition because the Petitioner cannot be
certified for it admits to membership employees other than guards.
The Petitioner contends that the firemen involved herein are not
guards because their duties of a guard nature are only incidental to
their duties of fighting fires, maintaining equipment, and standing by
while hazardous operations are conducted. The Intervenor made no
contention.
'Los Angeles, Rocketdyne, Space and Information Systems, Autonetics, Atomics Inter-
national , and General Offices.
161 NLRB No. 33.
298 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Employer maintains an Industrial Security Department in each
of the six aforementioned divisions. Each division has a Chief of
Protective Services with Captains and Lieutenants supervising both
firemen and patrolmen.2 Patrolmen and firemen are hired at the same
rate of pay,3 receive the same indoctrination, and undergo a similar
training period. The latter consists of about 40 hours in both police
and fire procedures. There is also continuing on-the-job training.
Separate manuals for police work and firework are issued by the
Employer to patrolmen and firemen, both manuals are made available
to patrolmen and firemen, and they are expected to be familiar with
the contents of each. Periodic examinations are conducted respecting
the contents of these manuals. Training in the use of firearms is
given to both patrolmen and firemen. The wearing of firearms, how
ever, must be authorized and such use depends upon the circum-
stances. Both patrolmen and firemen are uniformed. At the time of
the hearing, the Employer was in the process of converting the fire-
man's uniform from blue to the patrolman's green and to have both
classifications wear patches and badges reading "Protective Services."
Both patrolmen and firemen perform deter patrols, which are
sometimes called fire or security patrols. The purpose of these patrols
is to check for the presence of fire and safety hazards, breach of
security practices, and violations of company rules. Patrolmen and
firemen are responsible for reporting and, if necessary, citing all
violations and violators found during the course of a deter patrol.
All plant protection employees assigned to gates are responsible
for permitting the admittance of authorized personnel; the checking
of parcels carried into the plant; the enforcing of rules against bring-
ing into the plant prohibited items; and preventing the unauthorized
removal of company property. Firemen in all of the six divisions
have regular duty at the gates, either tending the gate alone or
assisting patrolmen. In such instances, the gate assignments vary
from a daily minimum of about 45 minutes to a maximum of about
90 minutes. An additional function primarily performed by patrol-
men, in which the firemen share, is the opening of locked toolcribs
8 At the time of the hearing, however , at two of the divisions, Atomics International and
Rocketdyne , the patrolmen were under a police chief and the firemen were under a fire
chief . The record reflects that the Employer was in the process of converting these two
divisions to a single line of supervision as in the other four and that such conversion
would be completed by June 30, 1966.
8 Although no prior experience or background is required for a patrolman or a fireman,
it is nevertheless considered desirable. In fact, all of the firemen testifying at the instant
bearing stated that they had prior firefighting experience in a municipality or in the mili-
tary service. It would appear likely that the other firemen, for the most part, have had
similar experience. In addition, particularly in the three major production divisions, the
firemen are required to have an expert knowledge of certain exotic metals and chemicals,
fuels used in production, and the special requirements for combating fires occurring in
their use. Firemen must also have a knowledge of building construction and training in
the detection of fire hazards.
ROBERT HAWS COMPANY 299
for the removal of tools. In all such instances, the firemen is respon-
sible for obtaining the name of the employees admitted, the reason
for admittance, and the completion of a company form identifying
the employee and the tools or equipment removed.
Negotiations for new collective-bargaining agreements covering
Petitioner's production and maintenance unit are conducted every
2 or 3 years and, as a rule, preparations are made by the Employer
for a possible strike. These preparations include provisions for
assignment of patrolmen and firemen to 12-hour shifts, 7 days a week.
Under strike conditions, firemen are to be placed on patrol of build-
ings for the protection of employees and property and for the secur-
ity of classified material; patrolmen are to be placed on exterior
patrol, charged with the same duties.
Thus, it is clear that, although the primary function of the firemen
is to fight fires, maintain fire equipment, and standby while hazard-
ous operations are conducted, an essential and significant part of their
duties and responsibilities is substantially intermingled and inte-
grated with the enforcement of plant protection rules.
In these circumstances and upon the record facts, we find that the
firemen are guards within the meaning of Section 9(b) (3) of the
Act.' Accordingly, and as it appears that the Petitioner admits to
membership other than guards, we shall dismiss the petition.
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
' chance Vought Aircraft, Incorporated, 110 NLRB 1342; Boeing Airplane Company,
Seattle Division , 116 NLRB 1265.
Robert Haws Company and Millmen 's Local 1452, United Brother-
hood of Carpenters and Joiners of America , AFL-CIO. Case
7-CA-4352(9). October f1,1966
DECISION AND ORDER
On July 6, 1965, the Board adopted the Trial Examiner's Decision
in this proceeding,' finding that Respondent had unlawfully discrim-
inated against certain named employees and ordering that those
employees be reinstated to their former or substantially equivalent
positions and made whole for any loss of earnings.
On September 29, 1965, the Regional Director for Region 7 issued
a backpay specification and Respondent filed an answer thereto. On
May 10, 1966, a hearing was held before Trial Examiner Herbert
Silberman for the purpose of determining the amount of backpay
1 By Executive Secretary's order, not published in NLRB volumes.
161 NLRB No. 22.