Chrysler Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 3, 1948

79 N.L.R.B. 462 (N.L.R.B. 1948)

f
In the Matter of CHRYSLER CORPORATION, EMPLOYER and AMALGAMATED
PLANT GUARDS LOCAL No. 114,, UNITED PLANT GUARD WORKERS OF
AMERICA, PETITIONER
Case No. 7-RC-228.-Decided September 3,1948
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at Detroit,
Michigan, before Harry N. Casselman, hearing officer. The hearing
officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error
and are hereby affirmed, except as noted below.'
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 em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. The question concerning representation :
The Employer refuses to recognize the Petitioner as the exclusive
bargaining representative of the Employer's plant-protection em-
ployees unless and until the Petitioner has been certified by the Board
in an appropriate unit 2
The Employer asserts that the Petitioner is not eligible to represent
its plant-protection employees because of the proscription contained
in Section 9 (b) (3) of the Act. Section 9 (b) (3) provides, among
other things, that "no labor organization shall be certified as the repre-
sentative of ... guards if such organization admits to membership,
or is affiliated directly or indirectly with an organization which admits
to membership, employees other than guards."
1 The hearing officer rejected the Employer ' s proffered exhibit of minutes of a December
19, 1947, meeting of Local No . 114. UAW-CIO. We believe this exhibit should have been
received . We hereby reverse the ruling of the hearing officer and admit the exhibit, which
is in the rejected exhibit file , into evidence . We have considered this exhibit in deciding
the case.
Y The Employer and Local 114, UAW-CIO, entered into a contract in 1947, to expire May
15, 1949 , covering the Employer 's plant-protection employees at most of its plants The
UAW disclaims any rights under this contract and the Employer does not assert it, nor do
we find it to be, a bar.
79 N. L. R. B., No. 67.
462
CHRYSLER CORPORATION 463
Until February 17,1948, Local 114, UAW-CIO, chartered for the
exclusive purpose of representing plant guards, represented plant-
protection employees of the Employer. On that date, Local 114,
together with other UAW locals representing plant guards, disaf-
fiiliated from the UAW, and formed a separate international union,
called.Plant Guard Organizing Committee (herein called PGOC),
affiliated directly with the CIO. On June 2, 1948, however, following
the Board's decision in General Motors Corporation, Cadillac Motor
Car Division; in which the Board found that Local 114, PGOC, was
',affiliated indirectly with organizations which admit to membership
employees other than guards," the locals comprising the PGOC voted
to disaffiliate entirely from the 070. This was formally accomplished
by returning the CIO charter, and adopting the name of United
Plant Guard Workers of America (herein called UPGWA).
James C. McGahey, president of Local 114, UPGWA, the Peti-
tioner, and of its international, testified that there is no connection
between the UPGWA and any other labor organization. None of the
evidence adduced by the Employer is sufficiently strong to rebut
McGahey's testimony.4
We find, therefore, that the Petitioner is neither directly nor indi-
rectly affiliated with any other organization, and that it acted rea-
sonably to comply with the terms of the amended statute. It is,'
accordingly, qualified, within the meaning of Section 9 (b) (3) of
the Act, to represent plant guards.
We find that a question affecting commerce exists concerning the
representation 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 a single unit of plant-protection employees
(plant patrolmen and fire marshals) at 12 of the Employer's plants,
all located in and about Detroit, Michigan. Alternatively, the Peti-
tioner indicated its willingness to represent the employees, at each
plant in a separate unit. The Employer, although making no unit
277N L R B 1029 See also Matter of Sciienley Distilleries , 77 N. L R. B. 468.
4 The Employer urges that the Board apply the principles ' enunciated in unfair labor
practice cases involving company -dominated unions to this case , arguing that the Petitioner
"is nothing more than a thinly disguised re-embodiment of a union that the law forbids the
Board to certify " Unlike successors to "company unions," which are continuations of
organizations illegally conceived or illegally supported and dominated , the plant -protection
locals of the UAW-CIO were legal when formed , and remaihed legal , even after the passage
of the amendments to the Act . All that Section 9 (b) (3) did was to preclude the Board
from certifying a union as the representative of guards if it already represented other
employees , or was affiliated directly or indirectly with an organization that represented
other employees . We do not believe , therefore , that the same criteria applicable in 8 (a)
( 2) cases should be used here.
464 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
contention at the hearing, asserted in its brief that a separate unit
at each plant was appropriate.
The plant patrolmen perform the ordinary functions of plant
guards. The fire marshals,, among other duties, "make inspection
patrols throughout the plantsfor the purpose of assuring adherence to
safety rules and see that employees refrain from smoking in fire
restricted o4areas I . . . The fire marshals . . . are carried on the
plant-protection department pay roll and are an integral part of that
department." 5 It is clear, and we find, that both the plant patrolmen
aid the fire marshals are "guards" within the meaning of the amended
Act.
The' most 'recent contract between the Employer and Local 114,
UAW-CIO, covered employees in all the plants that the Petitioner
now seeks,6 and some others. Ten of the plants are within the City
of Detroit, one, the Marysville plant, is 55 miles from Detroit, and
another, the Dodge truck plant, is 2 miles from the Detroit city limits.
The Board originally found appropriate separate units of plant
patrolmen at each of the Employer's plants. In one of a series of
cases in which it so found, the Board, however, said, in 1'1)42: 7
"If, after certification, the Company objects to bargaining with
the Union upon a multiple plant basis covering plant-protection
employees at the several plants for which the Union may be cer-
tified, we will entertain for consideration at that time a motion
to consolidate any certifications previously issued and to include
within a single bargaining unit employees at all plants of the
Company which have designated the same bargaining agent."
Such action was later taken by the Board, and subsequent contracts
reveal that the parties' bargaining practice has not been on a plant-
by-plant basis. In another case, the Board found one unit appropriate
for fire marshals at all plants of the Employer which employed then-1.8
The record reveals that a Commissioner of Plant Protection, located
at the Detroit Highland Park plant, is in charge of all plant pro-
tection employees.' In addition, the wages, hours and working con-
ditions are the same, in all the plants, except that the Marysville plant
has a slightly lower wage scale.
' ' In view of the uniformity in working conditions for all plant-pro-
tection employees of the Employer, the bargaining history on a mul-
tiple-plant basis and the-close proximity of the 12 plants involved, we
5 Matter of Chrysler Corporation , 58 N L R. B 700
6 The Petitioner seeks only the Michigan plants of the Employer : the contract also covered
some plants outside of Michigan
7 Matter of Chrysler Corporation, 46 N L R P. 411. _
8 See footnote 5, supra.
CHRYSLER CORPORATION 465
believe that a single multiple-plant unit as requested by the Petitioner
is appropriate.
We find, accordingly, that all plant-protection patrolmen 'and fire
marshals of the Employer employed at the following Mi :higan plants,
excluding supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute zi unit appro-
priate for purposes of collective bargaining within the ineanulg of
Section 9,(b) of the.Act: Marysville. Chrysler Highland Park, , Dodge.
Main, Dodge Forge, Dodge Truck, Amplex, Jefferson-Kercheval, John
R. Storage, Desoto-Wyoming, McKinistry Storage, Plymouth Plant,
and Dodge-Lynch Road.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining with the Employer, an election by secret
ballot shall be conducted as early as possible, but not latef than 30
days from the date of this-Direction, under the direction and super-
vision of the Regional Director for the Seventh Region, and subject
to Sections 203.61 and 203.62 of National Labor Relations Board Rules
and Regulations-Series 5, among the employees in the unit found
appropriate in paragraph 4, above, who were employed during the
pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of this Direction,
including employees who did not work during said pay-roll period
because they were ill or on vacation or temporarily laid off, but exclud-
ing those employees who have since quit or been discharged for cause
and have not been rehired or reinstated prior to the date of the elec-
tion, and also excluding employees on strike who are not entitled to
reinstatement, to determine whether or not they desire to be repre-
sented by Amalgamated Plant Guards Local No. 114, United Plant
Guard Workers of America, for the purposes of collective bargaining.